From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 00:13:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 00:13:48 +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 AAA12321 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 00:13:30 +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 JAA07843 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:12:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990331090824.00813760@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:08:24 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card In-Reply-To: References: <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:38 AM 3/30/99 -0800, Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin wrote: >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. Maybe next time it should be reported that declarer said: "Oh, shoot, I meant a club." That would end the controversy. Everyone who thought a bit would know what really happened. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 01:55:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:55:08 +1000 Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13396 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:55:00 +1000 Received: from ivillage (1Cust215.tnt36.dfw5.da.uu.net [208.250.161.215]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA13158 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 07:54:54 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <4.1.19990331093804.00988eb0@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:45:36 -0600 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card In-Reply-To: <5u0DMjAibYA3EwA2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> <37006609.3FD1B063@mindspring.com> <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>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. I agree with David. (I'm chiming in here because, unlike with bridge directing, I have considerable experience with newspaper editing.) The words clearly illustrated declarer's state of mind at the key moment and should have been in the report at least once, in the account of the facts. I'm not sure that they should have been repeated as often as they were in the report. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net -- NOTE NEW ADDRESS Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading bearcat on OKB From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 02:34:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:34:17 +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 CAA13627 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:34:10 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27112; 31 Mar 99 8:33 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 "Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:45:36 PST." <4.1.19990331093804.00988eb0@mail.earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:33:29 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9903310833.aa27112@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au by flash.irvine.com id aa25549; > 31 Mar 99 8:01 PST > Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:55:08 +1000 > Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13396 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 01:55:00 +1000 > Received: from ivillage (1Cust215.tnt36.dfw5.da.uu.net [208.250.161.215]) > by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA13158 > for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 07:54:54 -0800 (PST) > Message-Id: <4.1.19990331093804.00988eb0@mail.earthlink.net> > X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:45:36 -0600 > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > From: Brian Baresch > Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card > In-Reply-To: <5u0DMjAibYA3EwA2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > References: <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> > <37006609.3FD1B063@mindspring.com> > <9903301019.aa08779@flash.irvine.com> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > > >>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. > > I agree with David. (I'm chiming in here because, unlike with bridge > directing, I have considerable experience with newspaper editing.) The > words clearly illustrated declarer's state of mind at the key moment and > should have been in the report at least once, in the account of the facts. > I'm not sure that they should have been repeated as often as they were in > the report. Maybe I've been misunderstood. I have no problem with reporting the actual word used, but the usual practice is to blank out some of the letters when doing so, something like "Oh, s---". I see no reason why this practice couldn't have been followed in the Bulletin. Certainly, doing so would have been accurate and would still have clearly illustrated declarer's state of mind. (Note: I'm not the one who suggested changing the word to "shoot".) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 03:01:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 03:01:16 +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 DAA13699 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 03:01:10 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-67.uunet.be [194.7.13.67]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA07933 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:01:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3701FC25.E15E394@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 12:42:45 +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: 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: > > 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. hear hear. And that is all I will contribute to this discussion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 04:00:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 04:00:57 +1000 Received: from smtp04.nwnexus.com (smtp04.nwnexus.com [206.63.63.52]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA13979 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 04:00:49 +1000 Received: from coho.halcyon.com (bbo@coho.halcyon.com [198.137.231.21]) by smtp04.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA12857; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:00:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bbo@localhost) by coho.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA13718; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:00:33 -0800 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:00:31 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard B. or Barbara B. Odlin" To: Adam Beneschan cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Editor@acbl.org Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card In-Reply-To: <9903310833.aa27112@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Maybe I've been misunderstood. I have no problem with reporting the > actual word used, but the usual practice is to blank out some of the > letters when doing so, something like "Oh, s---". I see no reason why > this practice couldn't have been followed in the Bulletin. Certainly, > doing so would have been accurate and would still have clearly > illustrated declarer's state of mind. (Note: I'm not the one who > suggested changing the word to "shoot".) I am the one. And s--- would have been fine too. Anything except the word itself that conveys the thought. "Oh, (expletive)" even. But there is no excuse for the flagrant use and reuse and reuse over and over again of the actual word, for the first time in over forty years of the bulletins at the Nationals, I'll bet. I certainly hope that Brent Manley will have more sense and not do the same when the case is written up in _The Bridge Bulletin_!! R. B. Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 04:15:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 04:15:39 +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 EAA14035 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 04:15:33 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-100.uunet.be [194.7.13.100]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA05253 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:15:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:06:16 +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: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > 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. > It is an infraction to USE an agreement that you don't intend to disclose. > 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 ... " > SHALL, not MUST. and I still say the emphasis is on the ALL not the SHALL. > So it is an infraction not to disclose understanding and information > from agreements and experience. ?! > Then why are so few penalties awarded for misinformation of opponents. When one forgets an agreement and therefor misexplains, the damage is corrected, but no more. There are usually no penalties. I am not saying that it is all-right to misinform. I am only saying that this is not of the magnitude of an eleventh commandment. I am concluding that since L75D2 does use strong language ("may not indicate in any manner"), this prevails over the misexplanation. > Robin > > -- > Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk Well, see you tomorrow, then probably ... Watch out for the "flying circus" bridge team. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 05:38:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 05:38:01 +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 FAA14246 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 05:37:51 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.134]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id VAA24820; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:37:30 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <370279A9.6E94AA68@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:38:17 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LORMANT Philippe CC: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L63B: from an English Gold Cup match References: <01be76e7$2ebfd780$c8c9fcc1@lormant> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by backrosh.inter.net.il id VAA24820 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Je suis d'accord : La loi la plus important : Embrasser !! And I believe that homogenous implementation of laws is more important than the right interpretation ...if the national committee decides the way to do it , it must be implemented that way (even if some world or galactic experts think it was wrong ; as long as the committee didn't change the guidelines. Dany LORMANT Philippe wrote: >=20 > -----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 >=20 > >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 defen= ce > would > >>then have won the revoke trick (just because they didn't in reality s= eems > >>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 tw= o > >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, >=20 > We have in France a Consultative Committee of Laws with 5 Directors, ou= r > mission is > to say how French Directors have to understand and to apply laws when = they > 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 bee= n > established " like " as if the enquiry had not been made ".But of cours= e 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 La= ws > easy to read > and easy to understand even for " clubs Directors ". You are all, worl= d > experts and you have many difficulties to have consensus....I don't thi= nk > THIS law is terrible in my > opinion : Bridge Laws are terrible! > If Laws apply for all, Laws have to be understood by everyone. >=20 > The most important stands: Embrassez ceux que vous aimez. >=20 > Philippe. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 06:42:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:42:09 +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 GAA14467 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:42:02 +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 OAA05057 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:41:56 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0KNA301H Wed, 31 Mar 99 14:41:49 Message-ID: <9903311441.0KNA301@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 99 14:41:49 Subject: VANCOUVER APPEALS CASE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After thinking about it for a while, I believe that the ACBL policy of allowing delayed corrections without penalty is in contravention of L74B1 as it condones paying insufficient attention to the game. It seems that L74B1 was written to address issues just like this one. While it appears that violation carries no direct penalty, by complying, the likelihood of avoiding a large number of infractions of other laws is great. For instance, a player not paying sufficient to the game may unnecessarily delay it and so warrant PP. A player paying attention to what they bid or play would know immediately if it did not conform to their intention, and since they would know, they would be able to take immediate action to correct. A player that does not correct immediately must either have originally [a] intended the action or [b] would rather live with the action than be subject to the potential consequences of change or [c] was not paying sufficient attention. As for the possibility of [d] they were ignorant of a fringe benefit of the law, I answer, why should someone who does not know the law get to be better off [instead of no worse off] because they do not comply with it? For [a] there is no problem. For [b] if a player needs to consider whether to risk changing without penalty obviously has done some thinking. For [c]] it seems reasonable that a player who was not paying sufficient attention is in violation of the advice of L74B1, and thus would not be entitled dispensation from the requirement for immediate correction. In other words, a player who does not change immediately does not get the benefit of changing without penalty. Therefore, to avoid a penalty, the criterion to correct the inadvertent designation is immediate change. Considering further aspects related to [b]. In the case it was ruled that 'Oh S___' in fact denoted that declarer had inadvertently called for a spade. As such, dummy at that time had the right to summon the director, yet did not do so. Could it be that the spade was the intended play, albeit a disastrous blunder? Note that it was dummy who called the director after play ceased instead of immediately as required for compliance with L9B1a. [i feel very comfortable inferring that anyone who was familiar enough with the subtle failings of L45E would be even more familiar with the non subtle requirements of L9 and L43A1a.] As a comment- Inserting words such as 'until his partner...' merely contravenes the principle laid out in L74B1. When rules are made, I reckon that they can be made any which way and they need not rest on underlying principles. And after such rules are composed, it takes a thorough knowledge of the rules, as opposed to a thorough knowledge of the underlying principles [for those subject to them] to comply and [for they who adjudicate] to apply. Roger Pewick B> Appeals Case 5 B> Subject: Played Card B> Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams, B> 22 March 99 B>Board: 4 Joanna Stansby B>Dealer: West S Q 6 B>Vul: Both H A 8 5 2 B> D --- B> C A K 8 6 5 3 2 B> Dan Morse Bobby Wolff B> S K 7 2 S J 9 5 3 B> H J 10 6 4 3 H 7 B> D A 8 5 4 3 D Q 10 7 6 2 B> C --- C J 9 7 B> Michael Shuster B> S A 10 8 4 B> H K Q 9 B> D K J 9 B> C Q 10 4 B> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH B> Pass 1C Pass 3NT (1) B> Pass 4C Pass 4H B> Pass 6C All Pass B> (1) Alerted; 13-15 B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- B>The Facts: B>The contract was 6C. The play went as follows: H7 to the king, D9 to B>the ace and ruffed, low club to dummy's queen. B>At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was B>played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh B>shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. B>At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, B>as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some B>restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the B>other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip B>of the tongue). B>Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an B>inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." B>As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be B>withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the B>Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be B>withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was B>changed to 6C made six, plus 1370. B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- B>The Appeal: B>E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W believed that the correction B>was not without pause for thought and that the Director had not been B>called until the hand had been completed. B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- B>The Committee Decision: B>The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had B>been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two B>significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue B>interpretation. B>1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no B>apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was B>virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps. B>2. When the SK was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh B>shit." The Committee believed that those words would not be said by B>someone who had just found the SK onside, but rather by someone who B>had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. B>The Committee therefore decided that the call of "low spade" was B>inadvertent. B>The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws Commission B>interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for thought" means B>"change of mind." No time frame for the change of call is specified, B>other than without significant time for thought. The key part of the B>interpretation is that the time for thought begins only AFTER the B>player realizes that an inadvertency has occurred. In this case the B>"oh shit" was after a short pause after the SK was played. B>The Committee explored whether or not rights were forfeited by waiting B>until the hand was over before calling the Director. The Screening B>Director assured the Committee that failure to know the law in this B>case did not cause forfeiture of rights and therefore, although B>calling the Director earlier would have been better, it did not cause B>loss of rights. B>During the discussion, it was noted that the law is quite different B>with respect to a play from declarer's hand (Law 45C2). A declarer's B>card must be detached from his hand and ". . . held face up, touching B>or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to B>indicate that it has been played" to be judged played in spite of his B>intent to the contrary. Note that declarer cannot change a card played B>from hand even though it was played inadvertently. B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- B>Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): B>Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent designation, states in the B>relevant part: " . . . a player may, without penalty, change an B>inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought . . ." B>The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card B>designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect B>people when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is B>only to protect them specifically from a mechanical error. B>Here, a low spade was played, the SK was played by East, then, after B>a short pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club B>instead of a spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather B>than a correction of an inadvertent error made without pause for B>thought. I would have decided that the play at the table stood and B>changed the contract to 6C down one, plus 100 for E/W. B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- B>Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): B>The majority view in this case was that no competent player would play B>a low spade once 12 tricks were clearly established. They further B>determined that when declarer "mispoke" by calling for a low spade, B>RHO played the king, and declarer paused and then said, "oh shit" that B>declarer had still not "paused for thought." Further, declarer then B>conceded down one. B>Mistakes do happen at all levels of bridge. If declarer had B>inadvertently played the low spade from her hand instead of dummy, end B>of story. Again, at this level, if declarer had immediately said, "No, B>I mean a low club" or, if immediately upon seeing RHO play the SK had B>said the same type of thing, I would not have dissented. This was not B>the case. The events as agreed by all the participants were that there B>was elapsed time between each step. Mistakes happen and they must be B>lived with. B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- B>Table Director: Stan Tench B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- B>Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Steve Bates, Olin Hubert B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- B>Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Lowe From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 06:56:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:56:07 +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 GAA14534 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:56:00 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([212.68.156.201]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA27792 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:55:46 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <37028BFF.CBC7B640@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 23:56:32 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Fw: A half-serious question References: <19990330042408.20044.qmail@hotmail.com> <8VbuEVAyGLA3EwSE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hard to believe there can ever exist an American TD translating David's ruling the right way ......!!!!!!!>>>::::}}}}}}} David Stevenson wrote: > > 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 Thu Apr 1 07:57:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:57:26 +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 HAA14694 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:57:20 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA01179; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:56:21 -0600 (CST) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001055; Wed Mar 31 15:55:28 1999 Received: by har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE7B97.4B351240@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:55:34 -0500 Message-ID: <01BE7B97.4B351240@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)'" , "John R. Mayne" Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Obscenity [Was Vancouver Case 5, is somewhat OT] Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:51:51 -0500 Encoding: 45 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually this discussion is very pertinent here, as it relates to the content of the casebooks and the courteous conduct of those charged with ruling and administering the game. It relates to bridge and to the Laws. Why would you wish to bar it? To what list would you wish to move it? It properly belongs here. If anything, we are paying too little attention to the Law 74A2 aspects of this case. We also patently have a violation of Law 74c2 I think. 74b2 may also be breached. There are some legitimate concerns with the language used. There are also concerns that are valid with the lack of good sense and good taste involved in literally quoting when bowdlerisation would have done as well. I have modified the term in the quote you used to show what could and should gave been done. There is no loss of meaning and great gains in courtesy. Just because you are not offended by such language (although you should be) does not mean that others are not. It has no place in the casebook or in the bulletin and does not need to be quoted here either. It is not costly to maintain standards of decency. This is not to condemn an ethical person for uttering the phrase in a moment of irritation...we all slip up like that. But there is no need for us to keep using such language in analysis after the fact. --- Craig > > > > 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 > > > > s**t." 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 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 09:59:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:59:31 +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 JAA15031 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 09:59:15 +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 <19990331235848.VVD11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 15:58:48 -0800 Message-ID: <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:03:19 -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: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Robin Barker wrote: > > 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. > > > > It is an infraction to USE an agreement that you don't > intend to disclose. Let's not be ridiculous here. Who will agree on various conventions, only to - at the table - intentionally forget them or not use them when the appropriate conditions occur? Your distinction is ludicruous, and I'm sure you know it. The law also states "..discloses ...in accordance with the regulations of the SO". Thus the SO can (and I beleive most do) force you to fill out a CC and disclose everything you have *agreed* upon, not only those conventions you intend to use. If the bidding goes: You lho Pard rho P P 1H P 3H and lho asks about the auction, do you think you can hide the fact that 2D would have shown a good raise with 4 cd support simply because you didn't *use* the 2D bid? Furthermore, this player *did* use the agreement (by bidding 3C followed by 3H), so your assertion (even if valid) is irrelevant to the case. [RB]: > > 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 ... " > > [HdW]: > SHALL, not MUST. I see. Your argument is that the disclosure is "voluntary". I get it - the whole emphasis put today on *full* disclosure notwithstanding, it is still optional but the main thing is that *if* you decide to disclose *anything*, you must be sure to disclose *everything*. *Almost* full disclosure is an infraction, but *no* disclosure at all is not. Tell you what Herman, if Grattan will represent that the WBFLC interpretation of "shall" here is that disclosure is not mandatory then, and only then, will I subscribe to this part of your "school". And as "proof" of your contention you offer: > Then (if it's an infraction #my clarification#) why are so few > penalties awarded for misinformation of opponents? > When one forgets an agreement and therefor misexplains, the > damage is corrected, but no more. There are usually no > penalties. Very simple. The reason is that the laws are principally made to correct damage and restore "equity", not to punish. Furthermore L75 very specifically states that the consequence of infractions is an adjusted score, not a "PP" or the like. The "penalty" is, if you wish, built into the formula under which such ASs are determined. Finally, the laws explanation of the MB/ME distinction very specifically uses the word "infraction". It says "This (#mistaken#) explanation is an infraction of law...". I'm frankly almost embarrased having to point these obvious things out to you, but when you try to defend your "school's" position using such contrived logic and ludicrous assertions, I have no choice. > I am not saying that it is all-right to misinform. But you *are* saying it is allright *not to inform*. > I am concluding that since L75D2 does use strong language > ("may not indicate in any manner"), this prevails over the > misexplanation. "*May* not", not "*must* not"! :-))) Btw, since you invoked religion here by referring to the "commandments", do you really think that because it says "thou *shalt* not kill", murder is a less serious "infraction" than if it had said "thou *must* not kill" ?? No - you don't need to answer this one, or any part of the above for that matter. I will *not* take the absense of an answer as tacit acceptance. I fear that trying to bring you "back in the fold" on this issue is doomed to fail. :-( Tant pis. PS: You "may" respond, but it's not like you "must" or even that you "shall". Doesn't this imply that, if anything, "may" is *weaker* than "shall", not stronger? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 10:29:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:29:57 +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 KAA15098 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:29:43 +1000 Received: from txdirect.net (anas-01-29.sat.idworld.net [209.142.69.253]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10113; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:29:30 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <3702BDC8.64D196F8@txdirect.net> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:28:56 -0600 From: "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" CC: Bela Boros Subject: Request for info - London area Bridge Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Off-subject, but maybe a London area director can help... A friend, Dr Bela Boros - BBORSOS@aol.com will be visiting in the London area and would like help, assistance, in locating a few duplicate games to play in. He is staying with his son and will be near a tube station and can get around quite well. Quoting his message: >I will be in the London area from end of April to end of June. >I will be staying in Sudbury Hill, Harrow on the Hill.. >This is in the NW area but I'm flexible. I hope this >info will be sufficient. Thanks, Bela Please communicate with him direct and thanks in advance for your kind assistance. -- BiigAl, Al Lochli biigal@satlug.org - biigal@txdirect.net - PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 - Phone: (210) 829-4274 Webmaster Units 172, 173, 187, 204, 205, 209, 225, 233, 237, SA-NABC99 Personal Homepage: http://www.satlug.org/~biigal/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 10:52:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:52:56 +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 KAA15161 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:52:50 +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 QAA15255 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 16:52:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199904010052.QAA15255@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:51:19 -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 Linda Trent wrote: > > 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. If the ACBL doesn't want to adhere to the bylaws of the WBF, of which it is a member, it ought to secede from it. The WBFLC has ACBL members, more than any other zonal authority I believe, including a vice-chairman, and it seems like very poor form to ignore its interpretations when the WBF By-laws state that interpretation of the Laws is the responsibility of the WBFLC. I did not know that L25B2(b)(2) is to be ignored. Where is that written? Speaking of writing, why can't the d--- minutes of the ACBL LC be published in a timely fashion? I asked Chip Martel in Vancouver about the minutes from the Fall NABC meeting, which were supposed to resolve questions about the interpretations provided in the WBFLC minutes from Lille, and he said plans were in motion to publish them. I'm w-a-i-t-i-n-g. That's "dang," for those with tender ears. Dany Haimovici wrote: > > And I believe that homogenous implementation of laws is more important > than the right interpretation ...if the national committee decides > the way to do it , it must be implemented that way (even if some world > or galactic experts think it was wrong ; as long as the committee didn't > change the guidelines. And I believe that the right (i.e., WBFLC) interpretation of the Laws is more important than implementation methods. But yes, the implementation guidelines should be followed exactly. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) (Between system crashes and PSW regional events) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 11:15:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:15:54 +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 LAA15281 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:15:42 +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 <19990401011531.BUDG11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:15:31 -0800 Message-ID: <3702C9C2.4A38E9D9@home.com> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:20:02 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Reform (was Re:vancouver NABC Appeal#5) References: <199903301713.MAA02507@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not intending to pick on DG, but using his post as the lead-in to some "philosofical" points. David Grabiner wrote: > It's too easy to pull the wrong card from a bidding box. [In golf] It is also too easy to accidentally ground your club in a sand-bunker, play the wrong ball from deep rough, tee-up a fraction too far fwd on the tee, have 15 clubs in the bag, and forgetting to correctly sign the score-card. Golfers have accepted automatic penalties for these "infractions" even when they were innocent and even when they didn't get an advantage from it (i.e. the "field" was not damaged), in the interest of having *simple* rules that don't try to second-guess the player's intent, etc. Even at the highest level these "procedural" penalties are not only accepted but self-imposed, in full knowledge that "equity" is not neccessarily served. Maybe the player never used the 4-wood and maybe the correct ball was later found with a much better lie than the one incorrectly played (and resulting in a triple-bogey). Tough. Rub of the green (pun intended). Sh.. (I'm learning) happens! Why can't we learn to do the same in bridge? Why do we insist on the right to be protected from procedural errors? Why do we insist in striving for an "absolute" equity which can anyway never be attained, at the price of having confusing, often ambiguous, rules that varies from place to place and need lots of interpretation and occasional mind-reading? What is it with us bridge-players that make us so lazy, and unwilling to take responsibility for our actions? Could it be that for too many it is "only a game", rather than a "sport"? If so we'd better accept the fact that outsiders will never take our sport seriously (as opposed to chess). And finally - Is it really *that* much more difficult to make sure you pull the intended card (assuming no physical hcp of course), than it is to count our 13 (hopefully) cards when withdrawing them from the "pocket" - something we all (?) do automatically? PS: Although it is only partly related to the above, I have long been advocating that most SO's (the ACBL for sure) should be split-up into two distinct parts, one handling the affairs of the "recreational" tournament players and one those of the serious/ambitious/competitive tp's. The rules can then be adjusted accordingly for each, with a more severe set for the latter group, expecting such players to be focused, pay attention etc, etc. As a bonus each group could also have different and more appropriate alert-rules, convention-rules, etc,etc. I've always felt that a player's level, or Master-schmoint total, are not the relevant criteria for deciding how "restricted" an event should be. "Ambition"-level and aspects such as comfort and "having a good time" contra competitive challenge etc are more important criteria. Many younger, ambitious, players like to "play up" whereas many older (not always) recreational, but experienced (lots of mp's), players like a more "protected" and "comfy", rather than "confrontational", environment. Why not honor that? Why not give people what they want? What's so holy about having one huge organization trying to be a "mädchen für alles" when it is so obvious that many of one groups desires are in *total conflict* with those of the other? Could it be power-hunger within the leadership? Can it be related to the whole "quantitative" aspect of many SO's goals (certainly the ACBL's), as evidenced by the focus on how many total tables there were at NABC so-an-so, membership-numbers etc, etc? I am convinced our game would improve for most players, and become more marketable, with such a split-up. Btw, a player could belong to both, since once ambition-level can vary from one day to the next. Most other sports have seperate organisations for different categories of players, and it seems to work. This also seems intuitively logical, at least to me - but I'm sure I'm missing something! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 12:44:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:44:10 +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 MAA15657 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:43:58 +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 10SXSJ-0002XA-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:43:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 03:01:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Request for info - London area Bridge In-Reply-To: <3702BDC8.64D196F8@txdirect.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3702BDC8.64D196F8@txdirect.net>, "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" writes >Off-subject, but maybe a London area director can help... > >A friend, Dr Bela Boros - BBORSOS@aol.com >will be visiting in the London area and would >like help, assistance, in locating a few duplicate >games to play in. He is staying with his son and will be >near a tube station and can get around quite well. > >Quoting his message: >>I will be in the London area from end of April to end of June. >>I will be staying in Sudbury Hill, Harrow on the Hill.. >>This is in the NW area but I'm flexible. I hope this >>info will be sufficient. Thanks, Bela > >Please communicate with him direct and thanks in advance >for your kind assistance. > Young Chelsea 0171 373 1665 Earl's Court (Mon Wed Fri) Acol 0171 624 7407 Hampstead (Tue Thu) Best games days shown. Enjoy, I'll be directing most of them :)) -- 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 Apr 1 12:44:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA15671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:44:17 +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 MAA15666 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:44:10 +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 10SXSJ-000L3v-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:43:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 02:53:54 +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: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >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 is to be congratulated on becoming an EBU 'A' Director This is the final examined grade for an EBU Director. From here on It's time serving. Well done Robin Cheers john (still a 'B') -- 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 Apr 1 13:18:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:18:57 +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 NAA15806 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:18:50 +1000 Received: from default (pm30-1-27.ac.net [205.138.47.56]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id WAA13906 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:18:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199904010318.WAA13906@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:22:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 In-Reply-To: <199904010052.QAA15255@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:51 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote: >I did not know that L25B2(b)(2) is to be ignored. Where is that >written? > **** Note: this is not official opinion or statement - but, I think it is accurate. I didn't say "ignored". I just said the ACBL interpretation does not agree with the WBF interpretation. ACBL does not agree that it only applies in passing a cuebid or forgetting to correct a blackwood response back to trumps, etc.. In ACBL you can change any bid before LHO calls (and get your average minus). For example, if you look at your hand and see 9 HCP and pass, then, if you discover a couple aces before LHO calls, you can change your bid and take your average minus. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 16:38:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA16559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:38:26 +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 QAA16554 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:38:13 +1000 Received: from modem42.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.170] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Sb70-0006Nj-00; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:37:59 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:36:22 +0100 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 300 foot hill is a mountain to an aged goat" - G.E. (to William Schoder) on the flatness of the Florida terrain. ################################ ---------- > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card > Date: 30 March 1999 11:41 ......................... \x/ ............................... > > North has claimed that she mis-spoke, > ......................... \x/ .............................. ++++ I did not read that in the report. What I read was that South introduced the suggestion. The report does not read as though North, who would have *known* what she had done, stopped everything and wanted the Director the moment she realised her mistake. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 18:15:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA16925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:15:10 +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 SAA16919 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:14:58 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-66.uunet.be [194.7.9.66]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA24887 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:14:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <370328F4.465AB902@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:06:12 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > Robin is to be congratulated on becoming an EBU 'A' Director This is the > final examined grade for an EBU Director. From here on It's time > serving. Well done Robin Cheers john (still a 'B') Congratulations, Robin. But I did not know that it was mandatory to argue against HdW on blml in order to get an A certificate ! :-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 18:14:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA16913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:14:46 +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 SAA16907 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 18:14:40 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-66.uunet.be [194.7.9.66]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA24873 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:14:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3703289B.93777F8E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:04:43 +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: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > > > [HdW]: > > > SHALL, not MUST. > > I see. Your argument is that the disclosure is "voluntary". I get it - no it isn't. > the whole emphasis put today on *full* disclosure notwithstanding, it is > still optional but the main thing is that *if* you decide to disclose > *anything*, you must be sure to disclose *everything*. *Almost* full > disclosure is an infraction, but *no* disclosure at all is not. Tell you > what Herman, if Grattan will represent that the WBFLC interpretation of > "shall" here is that disclosure is not mandatory then, and only then, > will I subscribe to this part of your "school". > > And as "proof" of your contention you offer: > > > Then (if it's an infraction #my clarification#) why are so few > penalties awarded for misinformation of opponents? > > When one forgets an agreement and therefor misexplains, the > > damage is corrected, but no more. There are usually no > > penalties. > > Very simple. The reason is that the laws are principally made to correct > damage and restore "equity", not to punish. Furthermore L75 very > specifically states that the consequence of infractions is an adjusted > score, not a "PP" or the like. The "penalty" is, if you wish, built into > the formula under which such ASs are determined. Which is what I say must be accepted, even when "deliberately" misinforming. > Finally, the laws explanation of the MB/ME distinction very specifically > uses the word "infraction". It says "This (#mistaken#) explanation is an > infraction of law...". > > I'm frankly almost embarrased having to point these obvious things out > to you, but when you try to defend your "school's" position using such > contrived logic and ludicrous assertions, I have no choice. > I agree that this is contrived logic, but it is only needed because there IS a clash between two Laws : L75D2 and this "eleventh commandment" that you all seem to believe exists. > > I am not saying that it is all-right to misinform. > > But you *are* saying it is allright *not to inform*. > No I am not, the misinformation shall carry the penalty ascribed by Law! > > I am concluding that since L75D2 does use strong language > > ("may not indicate in any manner"), this prevails over the > > misexplanation. > > "*May* not", not "*must* not"! :-))) > According to the preface, "May not" is just short of "must not", although I would believe otherwise, but then I'm no english speaker. However, where does "must not" appear in the laws. Specifically not in a law that says you must not misinform ! > Btw, since you invoked religion here by referring to the "commandments", > do you really think that because it says "thou *shalt* not kill", murder > is a less serious "infraction" than if it had said "thou *must* not > kill" ?? > If this were in the preface, I am certain that "thou shalt not" would carry an even stronger meaning than "you must not". That is what I intended it to mean, really. > No - you don't need to answer this one, or any part of the above for > that matter. I will *not* take the absense of an answer as tacit > acceptance. I fear that trying to bring you "back in the fold" on this > issue is doomed to fail. :-( Tant pis. > Indeed. > PS: You "may" respond, but it's not like you "must" or even that you > "shall". Doesn't this imply that, if anything, "may" is *weaker* than > "shall", not stronger? :-) well, I did ! :-) Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : - do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? - do you agree that there are no automatic penalties for misinformation? - do you agree that a player acting on my advice has done nothing terribly ethically wrong? If you can agree to these things, then I can agree to let the question as to which regulation is the stronger, sleep. Some players will follow my advice, some will follow yours. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 20:39:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:39:36 +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 UAA17369 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:39:28 +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 LAA01714 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:39:28 +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 LAA02748 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:39:20 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA17924 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:39:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:39:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199904011039.LAA17924@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > Congratulations, Robin. > Thanks > But I did not know that it was mandatory to argue against > HdW on blml in order to get an A certificate ! :-) > Herman, how little you understand the EBU. Arguing with HdW is an entry requirement to the EBU club directors course! :-) Big smiley: | ) -- ) | ) Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 20:43:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:43:28 +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 UAA17399 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:43:22 +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 10SewN-0006I0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:43:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 04:11:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Request for info - London area Bridge References: <3702BDC8.64D196F8@txdirect.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Young Chelsea 0171 373 1665 Earl's Court (Mon Wed Fri) >Acol 0171 624 7407 Hampstead (Tue Thu) >Best games days shown. Enjoy, I'll be directing most of them :)) Hmmmm! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +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 Apr 1 22:00:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:00:32 +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 WAA17779 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:00:24 +1000 Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id HAA16855 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:00:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:00:12 -0500 (EST) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Is this AI? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Start of the second half of a local team game after a _long_ day. You play in two different partnerships on this team, and play different methods in each partnership. You are the dealer, and you realise that your opening bid depends on who you your partner is. So you look up. If you were playing with screens, the information you have just obtained would not have been available. So, is it UI to know who your partner is when you might have forgotten? -- 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 | so I hope readers note the date of this message. USA | From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 22:30:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:30:48 +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 WAA17952 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:30:42 +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 10SgcF-0004qZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:30:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:17:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <370328F4.465AB902@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <370328F4.465AB902@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> Robin is to be congratulated on becoming an EBU 'A' Director This is the >> final examined grade for an EBU Director. From here on It's time >> serving. Well done Robin Cheers john (still a 'B') > >Congratulations, Robin. > >But I did not know that it was mandatory to argue against >HdW on blml in order to get an A certificate ! :-) > No, arguing against HdW is only required at the lower grades. Robin had to pass a test I set - though one of the answers was not agreed between myself and Max Bavin, At least, Max did the paper himself as a time trial and failed to get 100%! We have not resolved this! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 22:30:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:30:50 +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 WAA17953 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:30:44 +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 10SgcG-0003j7-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:30:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:14:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> <3703289B.93777F8E@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3703289B.93777F8E@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? No. >- do you agree that there are no automatic penalties for >misinformation? Yes. >- do you agree that a player acting on my advice has done >nothing terribly ethically wrong? No. He is completely and deliberately unethical. >If you can agree to these things, then I can agree to let >the question as to which regulation is the stronger, sleep. >Some players will follow my advice, some will follow yours. That is what worries us. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +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 Apr 1 22:48:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:48:55 +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 WAA18097 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:48:47 +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 10Sgth-0004qe-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:48:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:25:22 +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: <3703289B.93777F8E@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3703289B.93777F8E@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > I fear that trying to bring you "back in the fold" on this >> issue is doomed to fail. :-( Tant pis. >> > >Indeed. > >> PS: You "may" respond, but it's not like you "must" or even that you >> "shall". Doesn't this imply that, if anything, "may" is *weaker* than >> "shall", not stronger? :-) > >well, I did ! :-) > >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? yep > >- do you agree that there are no automatic penalties for >misinformation? > Nope 72F2 >- do you agree that a player acting on my advice has done >nothing terribly ethically wrong? Yep. I put it in the 'seriously misguided' category. > >If you can agree to these things, then I can agree to let >the question as to which regulation is the stronger, sleep. >Some players will follow my advice, some will follow yours. > 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 Apr 1 22:48:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:48:57 +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 WAA18098 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:48:49 +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 10Sgth-00003s-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:48:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:39:20 +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: <199904011039.LAA17924@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199904011039.LAA17924@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >Herman wrote: >> >> Congratulations, Robin. >> >Thanks > >> But I did not know that it was mandatory to argue against >> HdW on blml in order to get an A certificate ! :-) >> >Herman, how little you understand the EBU. >Arguing with HdW is an entry requirement >to the EBU club directors course! :-) > > >Big smiley: > | ) > -- ) > | ) > >Robin > Rolling on floor laughing. We have several TD courses: Level 0. HdW MI introductory statement and remarks Level 1. HdW simple MI argument Level 2a. HdW serious flame war re MI Level 2b. HdW thermonuclear MI riposte These are mandatory even for the caddies :)))) BTW He'll be here in about an hour so we can simulate my new course Level 3. HdW person-to-person MI gladiatorial combat. I'll be keeping you posted on the outcome. Morituri, te salutant O Caeser. 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 Apr 1 23:08:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:08:31 +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 XAA18207 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:08:24 +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 10ShCW-0006s5-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 13:08:05 +0000 Message-ID: <78UHteAu92A3Ewge@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:06:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Is this AI? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , richard lighton writes >Start of the second half of a local team game after a _long_ day. >You play in two different partnerships on this team, and play >different methods in each partnership. > >You are the dealer, and you realise that your opening bid depends >on who you your partner is. So you look up. > >If you were playing with screens, the information you have just >obtained would not have been available. So, is it UI to know >who your partner is when you might have forgotten? > I tell this one against David Burn, who in the premier League with screens conducted an auction based on the Fawcett system, whilst playing with Callaghan or was it vice versa .... This totally fixed his LHO (other side of the screen) that he rolled in a revolting 3N. No damage, no adjustment, but adequate material for an article in one of the magazines. His opponent was named Callaghan-Fawcett for the article and to this day nobody not even David knows which ... 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 Apr 1 23:30:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:30:43 +1000 Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18327 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:30:35 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n7d.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.125]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28247; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 08:29:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990401082457.00814100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 08:24:57 -0500 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: VANCOUVER APPEALS CASE In-Reply-To: <9903311441.0KNA301@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:41 PM 3/31/99, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > > >After thinking about it for a while, I believe that the ACBL policy of >allowing delayed corrections without penalty is in contravention of L74B1 as >it condones paying insufficient attention to the game. > >It seems that L74B1 was written to address issues just like this one. While >it appears that violation carries no direct penalty, by complying, the >likelihood of avoiding a large number of infractions of other laws is great. > For instance, a player not paying sufficient to the game may unnecessarily >delay it and so warrant PP. A player paying attention to what they bid or >play would know immediately if it did not conform to their intention, and >since they would know, they would be able to take immediate action to >correct. A player that does not correct immediately must either have >originally [a] intended the action or [b] would rather live with the action >than be subject to the potential consequences of change or [c] was not >paying sufficient attention. As for the possibility of [d] they were >ignorant of a fringe benefit of the law, I answer, why should someone who >does not know the law get to be better off [instead of no worse off] because >they do not comply with it? > >For [a] there is no problem. For [b] if a player needs to consider whether >to risk changing without penalty obviously has done some thinking. For [c]] >it seems reasonable that a player who was not paying sufficient attention is >in violation of the advice of L74B1, and thus would not be entitled >dispensation from the requirement for immediate correction. In other words, >a player who does not change immediately does not get the benefit of >changing without penalty. Therefore, to avoid a penalty, the criterion to >correct the inadvertent designation is immediate change. > >Considering further aspects related to [b]. In the case it was ruled that >'Oh S___' in fact denoted that declarer had inadvertently called for a >spade. As such, dummy at that time had the right to summon the director, >yet did not do so. Could it be that the spade was the intended play, albeit >a disastrous blunder? Note that it was dummy who called the director after >play ceased instead of immediately as required for compliance with L9B1a. >[i feel very comfortable inferring that anyone who was familiar enough with >the subtle failings of L45E would be even more familiar with the non subtle >requirements of L9 and L43A1a.] I assume you mean L45C4b, not L45E. Isn't dummy restricted by L9A2b1 or L43A1a? Actually, there seems to be a subtle difference in these Laws between 1987 and 1997 that I was unaware of. Perhaps these makes your inference incorrect. Tim > >As a comment- Inserting words such as 'until his partner...' merely >contravenes the principle laid out in L74B1. When rules are made, I reckon >that they can be made any which way and they need not rest on underlying >principles. And after such rules are composed, it takes a thorough >knowledge of the rules, as opposed to a thorough knowledge of the underlying >principles [for those subject to them] to comply and [for they who >adjudicate] to apply. > >Roger Pewick > > > > >B> Appeals Case 5 >B> Subject: Played Card >B> Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams, >B> 22 March 99 > >B>Board: 4 Joanna Stansby >B>Dealer: West S Q 6 >B>Vul: Both H A 8 5 2 >B> D --- >B> C A K 8 6 5 3 2 >B> Dan Morse Bobby Wolff >B> S K 7 2 S J 9 5 3 >B> H J 10 6 4 3 H 7 >B> D A 8 5 4 3 D Q 10 7 6 2 >B> C --- C J 9 7 >B> Michael Shuster >B> S A 10 8 4 >B> H K Q 9 >B> D K J 9 >B> C Q 10 4 > >B> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >B> Pass 1C Pass 3NT (1) >B> Pass 4C Pass 4H >B> Pass 6C All Pass > >B> (1) Alerted; 13-15 >B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >B>The Facts: > >B>The contract was 6C. The play went as follows: H7 to the king, D9 to >B>the ace and ruffed, low club to dummy's queen. > >B>At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The SK was >B>played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh >B>shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. > >B>At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, >B>as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some >B>restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the >B>other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip >B>of the tongue). > >B>Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an >B>inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." > >B>As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be >B>withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the >B>Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be >B>withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was >B>changed to 6C made six, plus 1370. >B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >B>The Appeal: > >B>E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W believed that the correction >B>was not without pause for thought and that the Director had not been >B>called until the hand had been completed. >B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >B>The Committee Decision: > >B>The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had >B>been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two >B>significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue >B>interpretation. > >B>1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no >B>apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was >B>virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps. > >B>2. When the SK was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh >B>shit." The Committee believed that those words would not be said by >B>someone who had just found the SK onside, but rather by someone who >B>had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. > >B>The Committee therefore decided that the call of "low spade" was >B>inadvertent. > >B>The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws Commission >B>interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for thought" means >B>"change of mind." No time frame for the change of call is specified, >B>other than without significant time for thought. The key part of the >B>interpretation is that the time for thought begins only AFTER the >B>player realizes that an inadvertency has occurred. In this case the >B>"oh shit" was after a short pause after the SK was played. > >B>The Committee explored whether or not rights were forfeited by waiting >B>until the hand was over before calling the Director. The Screening >B>Director assured the Committee that failure to know the law in this >B>case did not cause forfeiture of rights and therefore, although >B>calling the Director earlier would have been better, it did not cause >B>loss of rights. > >B>During the discussion, it was noted that the law is quite different >B>with respect to a play from declarer's hand (Law 45C2). A declarer's >B>card must be detached from his hand and ". . . held face up, touching >B>or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to >B>indicate that it has been played" to be judged played in spite of his >B>intent to the contrary. Note that declarer cannot change a card played >B>from hand even though it was played inadvertently. >B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >B>Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): > >B>Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent designation, states in the >B>relevant part: " . . . a player may, without penalty, change an >B>inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought . . ." > >B>The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card >B>designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect >B>people when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is >B>only to protect them specifically from a mechanical error. > >B>Here, a low spade was played, the SK was played by East, then, after >B>a short pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club >B>instead of a spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather >B>than a correction of an inadvertent error made without pause for >B>thought. I would have decided that the play at the table stood and >B>changed the contract to 6C down one, plus 100 for E/W. >B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >B>Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): > >B>The majority view in this case was that no competent player would play >B>a low spade once 12 tricks were clearly established. They further >B>determined that when declarer "mispoke" by calling for a low spade, >B>RHO played the king, and declarer paused and then said, "oh shit" that >B>declarer had still not "paused for thought." Further, declarer then >B>conceded down one. > >B>Mistakes do happen at all levels of bridge. If declarer had >B>inadvertently played the low spade from her hand instead of dummy, end >B>of story. Again, at this level, if declarer had immediately said, "No, >B>I mean a low club" or, if immediately upon seeing RHO play the SK had >B>said the same type of thing, I would not have dissented. This was not >B>the case. The events as agreed by all the participants were that there >B>was elapsed time between each step. Mistakes happen and they must be >B>lived with. >B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >B>Table Director: Stan Tench >B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >B>Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Steve Bates, Olin Hubert >B>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >B>Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Lowe > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 23:31:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:31:33 +1000 Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18348 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:31:27 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n7d.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.125]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28344 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 08:30:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990401082625.00833b50@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 08:26:25 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: VANCOUVER APPEALS CASE Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry for lack of snipping... At 02:41 PM 3/31/99, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >Note that it was dummy who called the director after >play ceased instead of immediately as required for compliance with L9B1a. >[i feel very comfortable inferring that anyone who was familiar enough with >the subtle failings of L45E would be even more familiar with the non subtle >requirements of L9 and L43A1a.] I assume you mean L45C4b, not L45E. Isn't dummy restricted by L9A2b1 or L43A1a? Actually, there seems to be a subtle difference in these Laws between 1987 and 1997 that I was unaware of. Perhaps these makes your inference incorrect. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 1 23:35:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:35:13 +1000 Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18372 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:35:07 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n7d.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.125]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28561 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 08:34:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990401083003.0082ae30@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 08:30:03 -0500 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: RE: Obscenity [Was Vancouver Case 5, is somewhat OT] In-Reply-To: <01BE7B97.4B351240@har-pa2-03.ix.NETCOM.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:51 PM 3/31/99 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: > Just because you are not offended by such language (although you >should be) does not mean that others are not. Why should I be offended? >>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 >>s**t." As has been pointed out elsewhere, North actually said "spade" not "low spade." Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 00:13:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 00:13:39 +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 AAA19931 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 00:13:22 +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 OAA19100 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:12:32 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 OAA06434 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:10:56 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990401161307.007b1d00@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:13:07 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) In-Reply-To: <3703289B.93777F8E@village.uunet.be> References: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:04 01/04/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? > To answer what I think you mean: OK, L75D2 (not immediate rectification of partner's misinformation) is a situation in which Law writers decided avoiding UI transmission prevailed over agreement disclosure. On the other side it can be said it's an exception to "full disclosure principle", and this is why it was needed to precise what should be done in this "exception" situation. In the other situations, the general principle is 75C: partnership background disclosed. It was so evident to law-makers that they sometimes omitted to repeat it. 75D1: when a player realises his explanation was erroneous, he must call TD who applies L21, that is to say, allows NOS's change of call. One can think NOS will choose his substitute call after being told the right explanation, but it is not said that OS should correct the explanation! About UI, it can be said that the infraction is the use, not the transmission (except "criminal" transmission): 73D1 "an hesitation does not in itself constitute a violation" >- do you agree that there are no automatic penalties for >misinformation? > Agreed: only when there is damage. Except that, in some areas, it has become common practice to award PP when misinformation results in no damage (different explanations from both sides of the screen); but this jurisprudence has nothing to do with the Laws. >- do you agree that a player acting on my advice has done >nothing terribly ethically wrong? > Agreed: this is one of many situations in which somebody may be wrong in very good faith, and, admittedly, not very badly wrong. What hurts me the most in your heretic (IMO) school is that it hides misunderstandings and favours "not very ethical" players. At the end of the deal NOS will not have been aware of what really happened and maybe will not know they have been damaged. An ethical player will then tell them the whole story but another, a little less ethical (and not necesseraly a very bad boy!) will be in the comfortable situation of dropping, without only having taken the risk of commiting a previous infraction. >If you can agree to these things, then I can agree to let >the question as to which regulation is the stronger, sleep. >Some players will follow my advice, some will follow yours. > I will not comment your conclusions. JP Rocafort >-- >Herman DE WAEL ________________________________________________________________ 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 Apr 2 01:04:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 01:04:54 +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 BAA20992 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 01:04:28 +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 10Sj0S-0007cd-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 15:03:44 +0000 Message-ID: <0xnw7XAtb3A3EwwK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:38:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Is this AI? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , richard lighton writes >Start of the second half of a local team game after a _long_ day. >You play in two different partnerships on this team, and play >different methods in each partnership. > >You are the dealer, and you realise that your opening bid depends >on who you your partner is. So you look up. > >If you were playing with screens, the information you have just >obtained would not have been available. So, is it UI to know >who your partner is when you might have forgotten? Some human, isn't it? Does it matter? When playing without screens there are ***no*** screens. My master [hoho, very funny] says that these screen tests are way overdone. -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 04:03:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 04:03:21 +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 EAA22025 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 04:03:11 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa22552; 1 Apr 99 10:02 PST To: blml CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Reform (was Re:vancouver NABC Appeal#5) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 Mar 1999 17:20:02 PST." <3702C9C2.4A38E9D9@home.com> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:02:36 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904011002.aa22552@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > Why can't we learn to do the same in bridge? Why do we insist on the > right to be protected from procedural errors? My feelings also. What bothers me is that most "mechanical" errors are the result of failure to pay attention to what's going on. Failure to pay complete attention is a problem I have also---but, for me, it usually doesn't result in procedural violations or calling for the wrong card; rather, the result is more likely to be failure to unblock a suit on defense, or forgetting whether a queen was played earlier, or (far too often) not noticing which spots my partner followed with on the first two rounds of the suit and therefore not getting a correct count. None of those are things I can expect redress for. It's laughable to think that I could call the director and say, "I lost my concentration and I should have unblocked this suit, and as a result I had to give declarer one more trick than he should have gotten, so can I have a score adjustment?" If I can't expect an adjustment when my failure to pay attention results in a failure to unblock, why should I have any sympathy for those whose failure to pay attention results in playing the wrong card or not following suit? > Why do we insist in > striving for an "absolute" equity which can anyway never be attained, at > the price of having confusing, often ambiguous, rules that varies from > place to place and need lots of interpretation and occasional > mind-reading? What is it with us bridge-players that make us so lazy, > and unwilling to take responsibility for our actions? Could it be that > for too many it is "only a game", rather than a "sport"? Hmmm . . . if this were so, would they have been able to sell so many T-shirts that say "Bridge isn't a life or death matter---it's much more serious than that"? :) I'm just kidding---I think you have a good point. Also, your idea of splitting the serious and recreational players sounds good in theory, but I don't know whether it would work in practice. I suspect that there are a good number of players who would prefer to play by the more lenient "recreational" rules, but would be unhappy if they won such an event and it were merely called a "recreational" event. Forcing such players to make a choice between playing by less-forgiving rules and playing in an event with a "recreational" stigma might cause them to give up bridge. Maybe I'm wrong about this. I don't know. > . . . > And finally - Is it really *that* much more difficult to make sure you > pull the intended card (assuming no physical hcp of course), than it is > to count our 13 (hopefully) cards when withdrawing them from the > "pocket" - something we all (?) do automatically? It shouldn't be difficult at all. In my opinion, the *only* difficulty comes when a bid or play has to be spoken (which is probably why the rules about playing from dummy are different from the rules about playing from declarer's or defenders' hands). The reason is that we really can't check to make sure we're saying the right thing until after we've already said it and have had a chance to hear it. So I think it's a good idea, when a call or play is spoken, to give the speaker a chance to correct a slip of the tongue. However, I don't think it's too much to ask for players to listen to what they say, and if what they say doesn't come out as they intended, to correct it immediately. Thus, I believe the "in the same breath" standard is the correct one when something is spoken. In other situations (pulling a bidding card out of a bidding box, pulling a card out of one's hand), there's ample opportunity to make sure you're doing what you intended to do (i.e. look at the darn thing before you place it on the table), so I don't see any reason to provide an opportunity to correct---unless someone inadvertently drops a slippery card or something; or unless someone has a physical handicap. The same principle should apply to computer bridge. If the software provides an opportunity to confirm what you've selected before it transmits your selection, it shouldn't be necessary to provide an opportunity to correct it. For example, in OKWin, when you make a bid, you click on the bid with the mouse; the bid is then highlighted; and then you have to click on something else before the call is actually made. So here, there's plenty of chance to make sure you clicked on the correct call, so there's no reason to allow someone to correct a call once made. On the other hand, if the software transmitted your bid as soon as you clicked on it (a poor design, IMHO), there *should* be a way to correct it, since there's no way to tell whether you've committed a mechanical error until after the call has been made. Anyway, these are just my ideas on how the Laws would be if I got the chance to write them as I saw fit. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 04:15:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 04:15:40 +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 EAA22130 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 04:15:34 +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 KAA21460 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:15:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199904011815.KAA21460@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Reply-To: From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:15:13 -0800 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I did not know that L25B2(b)(2) is to be ignored. Where is that > >written? > > > > **** Note: this is not official opinion or statement - but, I think it is > accurate. > > I didn't say "ignored". Your words were: "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." I was wrong to imply that you said the law is ignored, when you were referring only to a WBF interpretation of the law. Sorry. > I just said the ACBL interpretation does not agree > with the WBF interpretation. If you mean the WBFLC interpretation, the WBF By-laws say that the WBFLC is the sole body with authority to interpret the Laws. Implementation of its interpretations may differ in different places, but must not conflict with them. It's analogous to the rule about regulations issued by sponsoring organizations, which may not conflict with the Laws. > ACBL does not agree that it only applies in > passing a cuebid or forgetting to correct a blackwood response back to > trumps, etc.. In ACBL you can change any bid before LHO calls (and get > your average minus). For example, if you look at your hand and see 9 HCP > and pass, then, if you discover a couple aces before LHO calls, you can > change your bid and take your average minus. > Where is that written? Interpretive guidelines for implementing the Laws are supposed to be provided by the LC, not by word-of-mouth agreements among AC members. The correct procedure is this: SOs go to the LC when an interpretive guideline is needed, the LC issues a guideline, the guideline is published. A good example is the clarification of the words "logical alternative" that was provided by the LC. This procedure is not always being followed by the ACBL. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 06:59:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 06:59:52 +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 GAA22885 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 06:59:44 +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 OAA21160 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:59:39 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0L0P3020 Thu, 01 Apr 99 14:57:44 Message-ID: <9904011457.0L0P302@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 01 Apr 99 14:57:44 Subject: VANCOUVER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes, I am sorry, I did not mean 45E, but did mean 45C4b. As near as I can tell, only 45D changed in 1997. I understand the change to L43A1a was made to clarify that dummy is not permitted to call the director until after attention was drawn to an irregularity, dummy of course is not permitted to draw attention to an irregularity. And the change to L9B1b established the power for dummy to call after attention is drawn. It was ruled that declarer's comment after RHO had played and then a pause by declarer clearly indicated that declarer had not intended to play a spade from dummy and that it meant absolutely nothing else [such as " oops I really mucked this!"]. Since this is so, attention clearly was drawn to the fact that the call of a spade was inadvertent. At that point, L9/L43a1a opens the door for dummy to call the director. L9B1a requires that the director be summoned immediately. However, this was not done. As for making my analysis incorrect, you need to clarify in which way. Roger Pewick B>Sorry for lack of snipping... B>At 02:41 PM 3/31/99, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: B>>Note that it was dummy who called the director after B>>play ceased instead of immediately as required for compliance with B>L9B1a. >[i feel very comfortable inferring that anyone who was B>familiar enough with >the subtle failings of L45E would be even more B>familiar with the non subtle >requirements of L9 and L43A1a.] B>I assume you mean L45C4b, not L45E. Isn't dummy restricted by L9A2b1 or B>L43A1a? Actually, there seems to be a subtle difference in these Laws B>between 1987 and 1997 that I was unaware of. Perhaps these makes your B>inference incorrect. B>Tim B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 07:49:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 07:49:17 +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 HAA23101 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 07:49:08 +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 QAA16829 for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:48:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id QAA16755; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:48:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:48:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199904012148.QAA16755@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Robin had to pass a test I set - though one of the answers was not >agreed between myself and Max Bavin, At least, Max did the paper >himself as a time trial and failed to get 100%! We have not resolved >this! > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 (0)870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Any chance of us taking a look at this test, and perhaps trying it ourselves? I recently passed the ACBL TA exam, and would be interested in seeing how the two tests compare. Tony (aka ac342) ps I suspect the UK test is somewhat tougher.. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 08:27:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:27:19 +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 IAA23288 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 08:27:13 +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 10SpvR-00090m-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 22:27:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 23:25:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <199904012148.QAA16755@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199904012148.QAA16755@freenet5.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >> >> Robin had to pass a test I set - though one of the answers was not >>agreed between myself and Max Bavin, At least, Max did the paper >>himself as a time trial and failed to get 100%! We have not resolved >>this! >Any chance of us taking a look at this test, and perhaps >trying it ourselves? I recently passed the ACBL TA exam, >and would be interested in seeing how the two tests compare. > Tony (aka ac342) >ps I suspect the UK test is somewhat tougher.. I shall ask Max Bavin. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +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 Apr 2 10:17:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:17:01 +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 KAA23842 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:16:55 +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 <19990402001648.OURZ11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:16:48 -0800 Message-ID: <37040D7F.2957EE4E@home.com> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:21:19 -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: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> <3703289B.93777F8E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > > - do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? Yes. > - do you agree that there are no automatic penalties for > misinformation? I do - but don't forget you are possibly stepping over the line towards L72B2 (although the latter also does not give *automatic* penalties). > - do you agree that a player acting on my advice has done > nothing terribly ethically wrong? I generally have a problem with the use of the "e-word" in these discussions. Cheating is unethical. Inadvertantly commiting an infraction is not. Intentionally commiting an infraction (MI) while being prepared to pay the consequences (as you said you were) is probably a breach of L72B2. Does that make it automatically "unethical"? I don't know and I'm not sure it's that important. I'll grant you that if you do it: a) in an effort to be helpful to opponents, AND b) because you beleive (mistakenly, imo) you are breaking a "lesser" law, you are not acting "terribly unethically". However, that does not negate the fact that you have broken (at least) two laws, while attempting to follow *a part* of one law (but subject to interpretation). Your breach of L75C is not in dispute, which you also generously admitted. > If you can agree to these things, then I can agree to let > the question as to which regulation is the stronger, sleep. I'm not sure my response meets your criteria (it surely comes close), but please let it go to sleep regardless :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 10:35:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:35:31 +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 KAA23934 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 10:35:24 +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 <19990402003518.PAQM11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 16:35:18 -0800 Message-ID: <370411D5.237D6DDD@home.com> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 16:39:49 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Reform (was Re:vancouver NABC Appeal#5) References: <9904011002.aa22552@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > I suspect that > there are a good number of players who would prefer to play by the > more lenient "recreational" rules, but would be unhappy if they won > such an event and it were merely called a "recreational" event. > Forcing such players to make a choice between playing by > less-forgiving rules and playing in an event with a "recreational" > stigma might cause them to give up bridge. Even if this occurred occasionally, I find that less objectionable (and less harmful to the future of the game) than having young, ambitious, players quitting the game because they're bored, and experienced "recreational" players quitting because they have to play in too tough competition. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 18:17:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:17:44 +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 SAA25165 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:17:37 +1000 Received: from modem18.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.146] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Sz8q-0006E2-00; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:17:29 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:15:58 +0100 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 300 foot hill is a mountain to an aged goat" - G.E. (to William Schoder) on the flatness of the Florida terrain. ################################ > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 > Date: 31 March 1999 14:06 > > 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 just do not recall the WBFLC having ever discussed it in my time. It is true that numbers of us, including Kaplan, have used the phrase "change of mind" in attempting to assist an understanding of what is intended - but I do not think the WBFLC as such has ever felt a need to add the weight of additional interpretation to the text of the law. The words "for thought" were added in the 1975 Laws. The 1963 code merely says "without pause". [ I think I could perhaps be persuaded that a return to the 1963 wording would be beneficial:- "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause." ] ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 18:34:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:34:17 +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 SAA25215 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:34:11 +1000 Received: from modem109.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.109] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10SzOu-0006So-00; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:34:05 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 09:22:14 +0100 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 300 foot hill is a mountain to an aged goat" - G.E. (to William Schoder) on the flatness of the Florida terrain. ################################ ---------- > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) > Date: 02 April 1999 01:21 > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > > ------------------ \x/ ------------------------ > > > - do you agree that a player acting on my advice has done > > nothing terribly ethically wrong? > > I generally have a problem with the use of the "e-word" in these > discussions. Cheating is unethical. Inadvertantly commiting an > infraction is not. Intentionally commiting an infraction (MI) while > being prepared to pay the consequences (as you said you were) is > probably a breach of L72B2. Does that make it automatically "unethical"? > I don't know and I'm not sure it's that important. +++ I suggest you could safely say it is "improper". ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 18:51:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA25269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:51:34 +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 SAA25264 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:51:27 +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 <19990402085120.TQRX11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 00:51:20 -0800 Message-ID: <37048618.A6329819@home.com> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 00:55:52 -0800 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +++ I suggest you could safely say it is "improper". ~ Grattan ~ +++ Indeed safe - very safe :-) PS: Grattan - how are you ever going to make enemies with such a diplomatic and reasonable attitude? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 19:53:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA25431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:53:58 +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 TAA25425 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:53:50 +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 LAA31979 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:53:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J9K1Y2QNOI004KHB@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:53:31 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 02 Apr 1999 11:53:30 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 11:53:07 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: law 25, being aged and flatness To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C16C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I assume that Grattan changed his statement to Kojak without pause for thought in 'aged man' to make it acceptable. I didn't appreciate Panos Gerontopoulos when he expressed the flatness (and smalness)of my country by the following: 'you know what a father does in Holland when his son has become 12 years of age?' He puts him on his shoulders, turns around once and says: 'this is Holland'. But that seems more polite. There is another "grattan-statement'in this message beginning with: 'I could perhaps be persuaded...'. Don't let it happen. What about the boy Kaplan described once. He bids 1S and immediately starts to look confused, looking at his opponents and partner. His face gets pale and red and after some time he starts to speak: I am sorry, I don't know what happened, but it is something I don't understand. I think I said 1S, isn't it? After another two minutes he eventually makes clear that his intention was to say 1H. If the TD can be convinced that the story is true he should allow the change. I support this law. The emphasis is on inadvertent and 'without pause for thought' is redundent. We don't need that. What we probably are saying here is that if somebody takes a pause for thought he didn't make an inadvertent call. Which seems almost true (you see, I know how to protect myself too). I am lecturing laws for some decades now and from the beginning I am convinced that this part of L25 is the most difficult to handle of all laws, because we can't look into the brains of other people (hardly into our owns), which has more benificial aspects than disadvantages, but doesn't help us here. A good Eastern to all of you, ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Grattan [mailto:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Verzonden: vrijdag 2 april 1999 10:16 Aan: David Stevenson; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ************************************************ "A 300 foot hill is a mountain to an aged goat" - G.E. (to William Schoder) on the flatness of the Florida terrain. ################################ > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 > Date: 31 March 1999 14:06 > > 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 just do not recall the WBFLC having ever discussed it in my time. It is true that numbers of us, including Kaplan, have used the phrase "change of mind" in attempting to assist an understanding of what is intended - but I do not think the WBFLC as such has ever felt a need to add the weight of additional interpretation to the text of the law. The words "for thought" were added in the 1975 Laws. The 1963 code merely says "without pause". [ I think I could perhaps be persuaded that a return to the 1963 wording would be beneficial:- "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause." ] ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 23:00:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:00:38 +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 XAA25948 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:00:30 +1000 Received: from modem67.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.67] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10T3YX-0001zt-00; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 14:00:19 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: a Vancouver view. Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:58:02 +0100 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 300 foot hill is a mountain to an aged goat" flatness of the Florida terrain. ################################ ---------- From: John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director To: Grattan ............................ \x/ ...................... > What do you think of that ruling from >Vancouver on the played >card ? .............................. \x/ ............................... +++ I have been responding, privately, to an American invitation to comment (from a much respected establishment figure). It is not unthinkable to publish the gist of what I have said:- // One must be wary of making unguarded judgments from afar - "Distance has the same effect on the mind as on the eye" - However it may be useful to pursue some questions and their potential relevance to the decisions made in Vancouver:- 1. First, as to the Director's ruling, here in Europe we believe that the Director should make the ruling which is correct in law, not bend over backwards in favour of the 'innocent' party. We qualify this by requiring that any margin of reasonable doubt be exercised in favour of the side that has committed no irregularity. I note how the Director evidently saw no such margin of doubt, no manifest risk that an AC might fail to uphold his ruling, so that in consequence it was the 'innocent' who were left to make the appeal. One wonders what it was that made him so assured since superficially there was a case that E-W could argue with much hope. 2. Secondly I stopped to glance at the Law Book. What it says can sometimes be of importance to appeals committees, and whilst the definition of the law is a matter for the Director in Charge, the application of that definition to the case is a matter for the judicial opinion of the committee. I observe that Law 45C4(b) applies when a designation of a card in dummy [or in a closed hand when Law 45C4(a) obtains] is "inadvertent" - i.e. when a card is named which is not the card selected to be played. The error must lie in the nomination of the card, not in its selection. The further condition of Law 45C4(b) is that there shall be no "pause for thought" following the designation of the card before the player changes the designation. [Some administrative bodies have tried to help with an effort at explanation: the Director, they have said, is not to allow a "change of mind". If this is helpful, well and good, but these words are nowhere embodied in the laws and the explanation must not be allowed to confuse us. I prefer to keep my eye on the distinction made above in the nature of errors.] 3. In addressing the nature of the error the committee has given prominence to two factors.The first, existence of twelve top tricks, is not a convincing basis for asserting the absence of error (or impulsive action) in the play. Turning to the other, in a past European incident a change of designation from K Hearts to K Spades was allowed because it was accepted that a player with little English had made an error of language (see the EBL Commentary on the Laws, example 45A). I have no sure knowledge of the present declarer's command of English (in any version). The only attributed piece of language could as easily be one of the only two English phrases learnt by a garbage collector in an impoverished territory, the other not being apposite to the circumstances. If declarer has a command of English, which specific card other than a small Spade was she intending to call for? Which card did declarer say was being called for? To justify its judgment the committee should have and believe declarer's statement on the matter and be satisfied the problem lay only in the naming of the card. It needs to be established that declarer was claiming as much before Mr. Shuster, perhaps protectively, suggested it and that North did not only recognize her intention after South had supplied the thought. 4. The committee explored the question of forfeiture of "rights" in consequence of the delay in seeking the Director's intervention. It rightly determined that no rights were lost. I would have liked to see comment upon the time at which attention was first drawn to the irregularity and a statement on compliance with Laws 9B1(a) and 9B2. I also wonder what attention was given to the possible implications under Law 10. It disturbs me that the committee appears insensitive to an appreciation of the implications of human behaviour as reflected in the actions of declarer. This declarer, we are asked to believe, recognized that she had tried to lead a club and had said a 'spade', that her only action was to say "** ****" and that she did not try to correct the designation, did not say "I meant a club", did not urgently seek the help of a Director. Who is joking? 5. To say that declarer "cannot change a card played from hand" is open to qualification if the card was designated under Law 45C4(a). 6. The East player was Bobby Wolff. I regard him as a bridge player deeply and sincerely obsessed with aspects of ethics and attitudes to the game, and who on occasion has gone over the top in pursuit of his ideals. At the present juncture I owe it to him to say that the course of events on this hand appears harsh in its effects on him. 7. Finally I take this opportunity to say something about the structure and function of appeals committees, and the need for balance in their composition. There is in some places a gross misconception, a fallacy, that competent appeals committees engage only the services of strong players. It is to be agreed that in matters of bridge judgment the opinions of strong players are to be given precedence, but appeals committees are not concerned with bridge judgment alone. They have to consider the application of law defined for them by Directors in Charge, and also the motivations that give rise to the actions of persons - and on occasion to the failure of the dog to bark. There is nothing specific in the characteristics making for a strong player which gives that player a particular qualification for these aspects of a committee member's role. Indeed, in my long and intimate experience of these matters the contrary has often been the case - the 'certainty' of the expert can blinker him to the liberal view of mankind that good judgments exhibit. That broader objectivity, and responsiveness to human character, is crucial to balanced committee decisions. It is not that I argue "the Law is the true embodiment of everything that's excellent, it has no kind of fault or flaw (and I, my Lords, embody the Law)" but rather do I perceive how much that is termed "Law" is not the decrees of Hammurabi, Solon or the Senate, but the misapplication of their purpose in inferior courts. ~~ Grattan Endicott ~~ +++ // From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 2 23:46:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:46:31 +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 XAA26053 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:46:24 +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 PAA28789 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:45:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J9KA1S908A004LT5@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:44:47 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Fri, 02 Apr 1999 15:44:47 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 15:44:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: L25 To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C170@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 Let's improve this before it is over: I was told that we are starting Easter soon and that Eastern is something else. Let me explain why this could have happened. When thinking about my reaction I remembered the Eastern way of bidding by using a paper and marking calls and was thinking of mistakes made and the use of 25 then. Therefore I demand a 25A approach. Is any TD believing me? How do you do that South East Asia? Any experience in BLML? ton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 3 00:39:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:39:29 +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 AAA28447 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:39:23 +1000 Received: from ip15.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.15]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990402143911.EDCP9985.fep4@ip15.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 16:39:11 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: law 25, being aged and flatness Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 16:39:11 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3704ca8a.727486@post12.tele.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C16C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C16C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 11:53:07 +0200, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >After another two >minutes he eventually makes clear that his intention was to say 1H. If = the >TD can be convinced that the story is true he should allow the change. I >support this law. The emphasis is on inadvertent and 'without pause for >thought' is redundent. We don't need that. What we probably are saying = here >is that if somebody takes a pause for thought he didn't make an = inadvertent >call. Which seems almost true (you see, I know how to protect myself = too).=20 Yes, almost. In practice, I find that I am almost never able to correct an inadvertent call. I decide to bid 1H, but somehow put the 1S card on the table. Then I see that the wrong card is on the table. My immediate reaction when I see that I have done something wrong at the bridge table is to give no visible reaction at all (which is sensible in many other situations), then think about what actually happened and decide whether this is a situation that I should call attention to. This takes some time, and by then I have "paused for thought" (thinking about L25A) and I cannot change the call. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 3 04:29:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 04:29:32 +1000 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA29087 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 04:29:25 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-47.ts-10.lax.idt.net [169.132.154.239]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA08486; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 13:29:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <37050793.A4297821@idt.net> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 10:08:19 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesper Dybdal CC: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: law 25, being aged and flatness References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C16C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3704ca8a.727486@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With the usual apology for a "me too" post, Jesper has described quite accurately what happens to me when I make a misbid or misplay, and I've suffered the consequences. I therefore have little sympathy for those who want corrections, and especially when they wait until the hand is over. Michael better not have ME on his committee! Irv Kostal Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 11:53:07 +0200, "Kooijman, A." > wrote: > > >After another two > >minutes he eventually makes clear that his intention was to say 1H. If the > >TD can be convinced that the story is true he should allow the change. I > >support this law. The emphasis is on inadvertent and 'without pause for > >thought' is redundent. We don't need that. What we probably are saying here > >is that if somebody takes a pause for thought he didn't make an inadvertent > >call. Which seems almost true (you see, I know how to protect myself too). > > Yes, almost. In practice, I find that I am almost never able to > correct an inadvertent call. > > I decide to bid 1H, but somehow put the 1S card on the table. > Then I see that the wrong card is on the table. My immediate > reaction when I see that I have done something wrong at the > bridge table is to give no visible reaction at all (which is > sensible in many other situations), then think about what > actually happened and decide whether this is a situation that I > should call attention to. This takes some time, and by then I > have "paused for thought" (thinking about L25A) and I cannot > change the call. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 3 05:51:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 05:51:03 +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 FAA29256 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 05:50:57 +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 10T9xq-000LSU-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 19:50:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 06:26:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Reform (was Re:vancouver NABC Appeal#5) In-Reply-To: <370411D5.237D6DDD@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <370411D5.237D6DDD@home.com>, Jan Kamras writes >Adam Beneschan wrote: >> I suspect that >> there are a good number of players who would prefer to play by the >> more lenient "recreational" rules, but would be unhappy if they won >> such an event and it were merely called a "recreational" event. >> Forcing such players to make a choice between playing by >> less-forgiving rules and playing in an event with a "recreational" >> stigma might cause them to give up bridge. > >Even if this occurred occasionally, I find that less objectionable (and >less harmful to the future of the game) than having young, ambitious, >players quitting the game because they're bored, and experienced >"recreational" players quitting because they have to play in too tough >competition. concur. they're old, they'll die soon. they're young they're the future -- 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 Apr 3 14:40:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA00149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:40:35 +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 OAA00143 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 14:40:26 +1000 Received: from default (vn-0-11.ac.net [205.138.47.182]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id XAA10614 for ; Fri, 2 Apr 1999 23:40:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199904030440.XAA10614@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 23:43:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation In-Reply-To: <199904011815.KAA21460@prefetch-atm.san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> ACBL does not agree that it only applies in >> passing a cuebid or forgetting to correct a blackwood response >back to >> trumps, etc.. In ACBL you can change any bid before LHO calls >(and get >> your average minus). For example, if you look at your hand and >see 9 HCP >> and pass, then, if you discover a couple aces before LHO calls, >you can >> change your bid and take your average minus. >> >Where is that written? Interpretive guidelines for implementing the >Laws are supposed to be provided by the LC, not by word-of-mouth >agreements among AC members. The correct procedure is this: SOs go >to the LC when an interpretive guideline is needed, the LC issues a >guideline, the guideline is published. A good example is the >clarification of the words "logical alternative" that was provided >by the LC. This procedure is not always being followed by the ACBL. At the Vancouver Laws Commission meeting the Orlando Laws Commission meeting minutes were approved which contains the following item: "In regard to Law 25B, the ACBL Laws Commission maintains that the right to change one's call is not dependent on the reason for wishing to make a change." Further, the following example was discussed in Vancouver: P - P - 1S - P 2C* - P - 2S The 2S bidder's LHO now asked "what kind of Drury do you play?" It turns out the 2S bidder did not realize partner was a passed hand (and they play a 2C alertable gadget by unpassed hands - or something like that, I don't exactly remember) and now knew that partner was going to pass 2S. He had a moose and wanted to change his bid to 6S. The Laws Commission decided that for purposes of changing your call, questions asked by your opponent are UI. I don't know how ACBL members get information from Laws Commission meeting minutes. I guess Gary Blaiss might be the place to start as he attends all the meetings. Linda > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 3 22:49:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 22:49:16 +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 WAA00644 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 22:49:09 +1000 Received: from modem83.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.83] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10TPrB-0003ZH-00; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 13:49:02 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: law 25, being aged and flatness Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 13:47:07 +0100 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 300 foot hill is a mountain to an aged goat" - G.E. (to William Schoder) on the flatness of the Florida terrain. ################################ ---------- > From: Kooijman, A. > To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Subject: law 25, being aged and flatness > Date: 02 April 1999 10:53 > > I assume that Grattan changed his statement to Kojak without pause for > thought in 'aged man' to make it acceptable.> > ++++ In the course of a discussion about 'climbing mountains in Florida' - something for which *my* age no longer fits me - I made this comment about my own feelings when he said the highest hill in Florida is "300 feet including the tower on top". The involvement of goats is an allusion to the fact that I am a Capricorn subject by birth (and a Pig in China, but I have no sense that pigs are mountaineers). ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 4 02:14:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 02:14:55 +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 CAA03497 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 02:14:48 +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 10TT4D-0001Tp-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:14:42 +0000 Message-ID: <2ZFU0+At4jB3EwbC@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:13:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: deathly hush on blml MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk UK Easter festival (Friday-Monday inclusive): TD: David Stevenson AC: Herman de Wael (co-opted) aargh :) Playing: David Burn I gravely introduced them all to each other before the start of play, and I know they were all drinking till 4am last night as my wife and the Belgians arrived back completely legless with the dawn chorus. No wonder it's all so quiet. Ah well, back to polishing the gladiatorial weapons. Cheers all, thought you'd like to know 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 Sun Apr 4 10:14:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:14:23 +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 KAA04457 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:14:16 +1000 Received: from modem16.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.16] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10TaY7-0007hk-00; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:14:04 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Further Vancouver thoughts Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:10:03 +0100 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 quiet conscience sleeps in thunder" - proverb --------------------------------------------------------------- ++++ I think I may add at a distance something to the remarks already passed to you. Those remarks were based upon the proceedings in Vancouver and the explanation of the law given to the committee. I have also been thinking as to how I would have conducted that committee. The first thing I would have tackled is the question as to when exactly the declarer changed, or attempted to change, the designation of the card. If it transpired, as I read the report to say, that she had made no effort to change the word "spade" to "club" up to the end of the hand, and before the intervention of her partner in the matter, I would have invited the Director in Charge to expound to me upon the meaning of Law 45C4(b). The point that I would have wanted to clarify would be the effect of the words " if he does so". Should the Director in Charge share my opinion that these words require the player to have changed (or at least have attempted to change) the designation of the card if Law 45C4(b) is to be applicable, I would have invited the Director in Charge to over-rule his assistant and to substitute a ruling which was not based upon this law, and if he were unwilling to do so I would have pursued the matter through the powers of the AC. These thoughts may have their sensitive side since they indicate a possible basis for an appeal on a question of law. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 4 11:26:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA04596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 11:26:42 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA04591 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 11:26:36 +1000 Received: from mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@mira.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.8]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id TAA19123 for ; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:26:29 -0600 (CST) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by mira.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id TAA10641 ; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:26:27 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:26:27 -0600 (CST) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: > >Where is that written? Interpretive guidelines for implementing the > >Laws are supposed to be provided by the LC, not by word-of-mouth > >agreements among AC members. The correct procedure is this: SOs go > >to the LC when an interpretive guideline is needed, the LC issues a > >guideline, the guideline is published. A good example is the > >clarification of the words "logical alternative" that was provided > >by the LC. This procedure is not always being followed by the ACBL. > > At the Vancouver Laws Commission meeting the Orlando Laws Commission > meeting minutes were approved which contains the following item: [snip] > I don't know how ACBL members get information from Laws Commission meeting > minutes. I guess Gary Blaiss might be the place to start as he attends all > the meetings. > > Linda All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about recent ACBL LC decisiobs are included in these mailings. The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the latest such update. Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions by the ACBL LC. -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 4 11:49:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA04642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 11:49:47 +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 LAA04637 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 11:49:39 +1000 Received: from p5bs02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.92] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10Tc2K-0000GL-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 02:49:21 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: deathly hush on blml Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 02:50:06 +0100 Message-ID: <01be7e3d$76bc2860$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 And I thought David was "on the wagon":-) I had not realised that Easter was such a time for indulgence until I got a request for a ruling just an hour ago." Not unusual "you may say. However the conversation started, "We are playing Trivial Pursuits, and the question was...............?" The answer was "because he had only one hand" and we said "because he had only one arm". How do you rule! I made my ruling as one does , and spent the next 10 mins wondering if I had got it right, as one does, and then decided to pour myself a rum & coke, as one does when one is out of whisky. I might take this one to appeal. Why wasn't I invited to that party? Anne. -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, April 03, 1999 5:34 PM Subject: deathly hush on blml > >UK Easter festival (Friday-Monday inclusive): > >TD: David Stevenson >AC: Herman de Wael (co-opted) aargh :) >Playing: David Burn > >I gravely introduced them all to each other before the start of play, >and I know they were all drinking till 4am last night as my wife and the >Belgians arrived back completely legless with the dawn chorus. > >No wonder it's all so quiet. Ah well, back to polishing the gladiatorial >weapons. Cheers all, thought you'd like to know 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 Sun Apr 4 14:11:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 14:11:26 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA04837 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 14:11:20 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial77.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.77]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA12665; Sat, 3 Apr 1999 23:11:09 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 21:55:23 -0500 To: Barry Wolk From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: ACBL Tech Files (was Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 8:26 PM -0500 4/3/99, Barry Wolk wrote: >All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about >recent ACBL LC decisiobs are included in these mailings. > >The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk >copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD >ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the >latest such update. > >Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions >by the ACBL LC. One of my pet peeves with the ACBL is their making "stealth" regulations, that is, rules or interpretations that TDs are aware of only occasionally and players not at all. In an attempt to address this problem several years ago I arranged with Sol Weinstein to post an excerpt of the Tech Files to the rec.games.bridge archives. I expect they're still there, and by now they're seriously out of date. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 4 15:23:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 15:23:27 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA04951 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 15:23:21 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial68.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.68]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA06270; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 00:23:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 00:09:05 -0500 To: "John Probst" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Pick-up Slips vs. Travelers Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:14 AM -0500 3/8/99, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >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.) And in the WBF one hopes, sometimes in vain, that the standings will be available before the start of the next session. After the final qualifying session of the Mixed Pairs we were urged to leave the building before the qualifiers had been posted! AW From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 4 15:23:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 15:23:25 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA04949 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 15:23:17 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial68.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.68]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA06258; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 00:23:11 -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: <199903071916.LAA19406@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 00:22:22 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 17 IMP max for XIMP (was 60 pairs, 4 sessions) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:16 PM -0500 3/7/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >I do not know the rationale used to arrive at the 17-imp maximum >score on a board, vs the standard 24. Anybody? Nor do I, but I'd like to! One year I won 323 IMPs (17 IMPs x 19 comparisons) instead of slightly more, due to this rule. The amusing part is that I'd made a fairly bad call to accomplish this. After partner opened 4H at favorable the opponents had a confused-sounding auction to arrive at 6S. I held approximately JT987 K xxx xxxx and doubled, knowing it could turn out poorly. Sure enough, they ran to 6N which I doubled again. I led the HK, out of turn but face down. Luckily for me partner turned up with eight hearts to the AQJ and not eight hearts to the QJ. Even better, he didn't lead 4th best... As it turns out I'd have lost IMPs had I passed out 6S. +200 our way was under average, though I suppose it would have been an IMP or so better without that +2000 in the mix. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 4 16:18:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA05058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 16:18:08 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA05053 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 16:18:02 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial68.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.68]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA04390; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:17:55 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199903071916.LAA19406@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 00:33:41 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Cavendish CoC (was 60 pairs, 4 sessions) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:16 PM -0500 3/7/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >I'll volunteer to proofread for the Cavendish if I get all >expenses. I can't offer that, but I promise to pass on any suggestions from BLML. This year's conditions are available at http://www.thecavendish.com/1999/condpairs.html One item that troubles me, and led to a nasty problem for a committee last year, is this one: 11. In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed. Methods of destructive nature are not authorized, nor are the following: (...) h. Any system, convention or treatment that would require a pre-alert and written suggested defenses. Item (h) seems circular to me. I don't think things should be left this vague, especially since the tournament committee is not vetting systems in advance. AW From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 4 19:50:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA05235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 19:50:58 +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 TAA05230 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 19:50:52 +1000 Received: from modem36.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.164] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10TjYD-00055J-00; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:50:45 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: law 25, being aged and flatness Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:47:53 +0100 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 quiet conscience sleeps in thunder" - proverb --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > From: Irwin J Kostal > To: Jesper Dybdal > Cc: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Subject: Re: law 25, being aged and flatness > Date: 02 April 1999 19:08 > > With the usual apology for a "me too" post, Jesper has described quite > accurately what happens to me when I make a misbid or misplay, and I've > suffered the consequences. I therefore have little sympathy for those > who want corrections, and especially when they wait until the hand is > over. Michael better not have ME on his committee! > > Irv Kostal > ++++ I realise that I have allowed my comments about Law 45 to be drawn over to Law 25. My thoughts were concentrated entirely on Law 45 and in any case I would want to consider Law 25 separately. I do have some warmth for a view put to me that there might be an exclusion of "time spent in contemplation of the correction of inadvertency" from the meaning of "pause". ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 4 22:21:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 22:21:50 +1000 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA05456 for ; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 22:21:44 +1000 Received: from default ([195.89.178.69]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 3067800 ; Sun, 04 Apr 1999 12:12:52 -0000 Message-ID: <000401be7e95$79739f40$45b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 11:19:06 +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 Thank you for the helpful advice. And now? mt To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 30 March 1999 17:20 Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 >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. :))))) > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 5 07:41:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA09034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 07:41:30 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA09029 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 07:41:24 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial54.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.54]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA11471; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 17:41:11 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@pop3.iag.net> Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 16:18:52 -0400 To: Craig Senior From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:27 PM -0400 3/30/99, Craig Senior wrote: >At 3:51 AM -0400 3/30/99, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>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! >Please do post it Adam. Open Pairs II. 2nd final session. Brd 20 KT3 Dlr W K932 Vl Both Q64 865 98542 AQ76 J5 A874 T982 AK K2 A97 J QT6 J753 QJT43 P P 2N P 3H! P 3S P 3N P 4S all pass West was a professional playing with a client who hesitated for ten seconds before completing the transfer. The facts were not in dispute. The director was called after the dummy was faced. 2NT showed 20-21 HCP. East took only 10 tricks in 4S, so NS already had almost 90% of the matchpoints. The directing staff agreed that the hesitation demonstrably suggested bidding over passing, but they did not consider pass a logical alternative. When I asked the director in charge whether he considered, if the case were at all close, ruling in favor of the NOS he told me that he did not consider it close. After all, 3N might make on hands where 3S was going down! I appealed as a matter of principle. In a split decision the committee ruled that "Pass" was a logical alternative and adjusted the result to EW +170. I'm told that the dissenter insisted in going on record, so we should see her reasoning when the appeals booklet comes out. Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 5 09:05:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:05:20 +1000 Received: from pm04sm.pmm.cw.net (pm04sm.pmm.cw.net [208.159.98.153]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA09188 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:05:13 +1000 Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by PM04SM.PMM.CW.NET (PMDF V5.2-29 #35318) id <0F9O00G01TFPB1@PM04SM.PMM.CW.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:04:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from uymfdlvk (usr21-dialup49.mix1.Bloomington.cw.net [166.62.23.49]) by PM04SM.PMM.CW.NET (PMDF V5.2-29 #35318) with SMTP id <0F9O008YITFNW0@PM04SM.PMM.CW.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 04 Apr 1999 23:04:37 +0000 (GMT) Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 15:59:11 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <00f001be7eee$c23ac420$31173ea6@uymfdlvk> Organization: the end of his wits MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@pop3.iag.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote > Open Pairs II. 2nd final session. > > Brd 20 KT3 > Dlr W K932 > Vl Both Q64 > 865 > 98542 AQ76 > J5 A874 > T982 AK > K2 A97 > J > QT6 > J753 > QJT43 > > P P 2N P > 3H! P 3S P > 3N P 4S all pass > > West was a professional playing with a client who hesitated for ten seconds > before completing the transfer. The facts were not in dispute. The director > was called after the dummy was faced. 2NT showed 20-21 HCP. East took only > 10 tricks in 4S, so NS already had almost 90% of the matchpoints. > > The directing staff agreed that the hesitation demonstrably suggested > bidding over passing, but they did not consider pass a logical alternative. > When I asked the director in charge whether he considered, if the case were > at all close, ruling in favor of the NOS he told me that he did not > consider it close. After all, 3N might make on hands where 3S was going > down! I appealed as a matter of principle. > > In a split decision the committee ruled that "Pass" was a logical > alternative and adjusted the result to EW +170. I'm told that the dissenter > insisted in going on record, so we should see her reasoning when the > appeals booklet comes out. > > Adam Wildavsky I've been wondering how to make the big money playing pro, but nobody thinks I'm that good. Until today. From this day forward, I will be using Adam as a reference, since he thinks I am a professional player. At least, that what he says in this write-up. That's right, folks. I was the poor, hapless West, playing with my girlfriend (NOT client). And I thought then, and think now, that 3NT was the right bid. But it isn't a big enough deal to get upset about. Especially now that I'm a recognized pro. Thanks Adam. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 5 09:07:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:07:36 +1000 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 JAA09205 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 09:07:26 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10Tvz0-0001Ll-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 01:07:14 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990405010503.00ab32e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 01:05:03 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:18 04-04-99 -0400, you wrote: >At 5:27 PM -0400 3/30/99, Craig Senior wrote: > >>At 3:51 AM -0400 3/30/99, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>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! > >>Please do post it Adam. > >Open Pairs II. 2nd final session. > >Brd 20 KT3 >Dlr W K932 >Vl Both Q64 > 865 > 98542 AQ76 > J5 A874 > T982 AK > K2 A97 > J > QT6 > J753 > QJT43 > >P P 2N P >3H! P 3S P >3N P 4S all pass > >West was a professional playing with a client who hesitated for ten seconds Did east really pass for 10 seconds with this hand???? Then he probably was thinking about bidding 4S instead of 3S Did the TD ask what he(she) was thinking about??? that looks important to me. >before completing the transfer. The facts were not in dispute. The director >was called after the dummy was faced. 2NT showed 20-21 HCP. East took only >10 tricks in 4S, so NS already had almost 90% of the matchpoints. > >The directing staff agreed that the hesitation demonstrably suggested >bidding over passing, but they did not consider pass a logical alternative. I dont think either. B.t.w. I usually play that after transferring after a 2NT bid you cant stop under game, that is standard in acol. >When I asked the director in charge whether he considered, if the case were >at all close, ruling in favor of the NOS he told me that he did not >consider it close. After all, 3N might make on hands where 3S was going >down! I appealed as a matter of principle. > passing in 3NT with 4 spades saurely isnt a logical alternative i think >In a split decision the committee ruled that "Pass" was a logical >alternative and adjusted the result to EW +170. I'm told that the dissenter >insisted in going on record, so we should see her reasoning when the >appeals booklet comes out. I would dissent too Perhaps a bit silly, but i dont see the real problem, unless EW have a system in which they can end in 3S with W holding a zero count and 5 spades :) > >Adam Wildavsky regards, anton> Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 5 10:23:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:23:14 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA09367 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 10:23:08 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial46.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.46]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA06821; Sun, 4 Apr 1999 20:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00f001be7eee$c23ac420$31173ea6@uymfdlvk> References: <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@pop3.iag.net> X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 20:22:21 -0400 To: Chris Pisarra From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 6:59 PM -0400 4/4/99, Chris Pisarra wrote: > I've been wondering how to make the big money playing pro, but nobody >thinks I'm that good. > > Until today. From this day forward, I will be using Adam as a >reference, since he thinks I am a professional player. At least, that what >he says in this write-up. > > That's right, folks. I was the poor, hapless West, playing with my >girlfriend (NOT client). And I thought then, and think now, that 3NT was >the right bid. But it isn't a big enough deal to get upset about. >Especially now that I'm a recognized pro. > > Thanks Adam. You're welcome, Chris. But my apologies for my misunderstanding. Let me state for the record that (a) I think everyone would agree that you're a better player than your partner and (b) I certainly think that you're good enough to play pro, should you choose to! Then, as now, I am not suggesting the 3NT is not the best call with the West hand, only that pass must be considered a logical alternative. Not only would I give serious consideration to passing with the West hand, I often would pass. For what it's worth, here's the text of the relevant Law and the ACBL's interpretation of "Logical Alternative". My apologies to those who've memorized one or both. Law 16A - Unauthorized Information: "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." The ACBL Law Commission's position on what constitutes a "Logical Alternative" is put forth in an article written for the ACBL Bulletin by Edgar Kaplan. It is included in the ACBL's manual for directors and committees. Here's the relevant excerpt: "The Law's phrase "logical alternative" is intended to exclude extreme interpretations: it means neither "any conceivable alternative" on the one hand, nor, on the other, "clearly preferable alternative." A logical alternative is a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available." - Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 5 11:30:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:30:26 +1000 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 LAA09505 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:30:19 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10TyDO-00071g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 03:30:14 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990405032803.00ab89c0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 03:28:03 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) In-Reply-To: <00f001be7eee$c23ac420$31173ea6@uymfdlvk> References: <3.0.16.19990329214524.0e075f50@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:59 04-04-99 -0700, you wrote: > >Adam wrote > >> Open Pairs II. 2nd final session. >> >> Brd 20 KT3 >> Dlr W K932 >> Vl Both Q64 >> 865 >> 98542 AQ76 >> J5 A874 >> T982 AK >> K2 A97 >> J >> QT6 >> J753 >> QJT43 >> >> P P 2N P >> 3H! P 3S P >> 3N P 4S all pass >> >> West was a professional playing with a client who hesitated for ten >seconds >> before completing the transfer. The facts were not in dispute. The >director >> was called after the dummy was faced. 2NT showed 20-21 HCP. East took only >> 10 tricks in 4S, so NS already had almost 90% of the matchpoints. >> >> The directing staff agreed that the hesitation demonstrably suggested >> bidding over passing, but they did not consider pass a logical >alternative. >> When I asked the director in charge whether he considered, if the case >were >> at all close, ruling in favor of the NOS he told me that he did not >> consider it close. After all, 3N might make on hands where 3S was going >> down! I appealed as a matter of principle. >> >> In a split decision the committee ruled that "Pass" was a logical >> alternative and adjusted the result to EW +170. I'm told that the >dissenter >> insisted in going on record, so we should see her reasoning when the >> appeals booklet comes out. >> >> Adam Wildavsky > > I've been wondering how to make the big money playing pro, but nobody >thinks I'm that good. > > Until today. From this day forward, I will be using Adam as a >reference, since he thinks I am a professional player. At least, that what >he says in this write-up. > > That's right, folks. I was the poor, hapless West, playing with my >girlfriend (NOT client). And I thought then, and think now, that 3NT was >the right bid. But it isn't a big enough deal to get upset about. >Especially now that I'm a recognized pro. > There are i think only 2 options. Either pass on 2NT or bid 3S and accept that you will end in either 3NT or in 4S, passing on 3S by your partner certainly isnt an alternative considered by any player. With 4 HCP and a 10, passing is not obvious at all i believe. I would as AC uphold the money and would consider the appeal having no merit (ZT minus points perhaps???? ) regards and succes as pro anton > Thanks Adam. > > Chris > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 5 13:05:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:05:24 +1000 Received: from cshore.com (term.cshore.com [206.165.153.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA09642 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 13:05:16 +1000 Received: from BillS ([206.165.246.244]) by cshore.com with SMTP (IPAD 2.5/64) id 1824800 ; Sun, 04 Apr 1999 23:01:59 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990404230557.007b76d0@cshore.com> X-Sender: bills@cshore.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 23:05:57 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Bill Segraves Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990405010503.00ab32e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Open Pairs II. 2nd final session. >> >>Brd 20 KT3 >>Dlr W K932 >>Vl Both Q64 >> 865 >> 98542 AQ76 >> J5 A874 >> T982 AK >> K2 A97 >> J >> QT6 >> J753 >> QJT43 >> >>P P 2N P >>3H! P 3S P >>3N P 4S all pass >> >>West was a professional playing with a client who hesitated for ten seconds > >Did east really pass for 10 seconds with this hand???? >Then he probably was thinking about bidding 4S instead of 3S >Did the TD ask what he(she) was thinking about??? that looks important to me. It seems clear to me that East should have been considering whatever type of super-accept was systemically available to show an exceptionally powerful hand for play in spades. > >>before completing the transfer. The facts were not in dispute. The director >>was called after the dummy was faced. 2NT showed 20-21 HCP. East took only >>10 tricks in 4S, so NS already had almost 90% of the matchpoints. >> >>The directing staff agreed that the hesitation demonstrably suggested >>bidding over passing, but they did not consider pass a logical alternative. > >I dont think either. >B.t.w. I usually play that after transferring after a 2NT bid you cant stop >under game, that is standard in acol. In 2/1 and most other standardish US tournament systems with 20-21 2NTs, it is standard for responder to transfer and then pass when holding ~ 0-4 points. >>When I asked the director in charge whether he considered, if the case were >>at all close, ruling in favor of the NOS he told me that he did not >>consider it close. After all, 3N might make on hands where 3S was going >>down! Ugh!!! >> I appealed as a matter of principle. >> > >passing in 3NT with 4 spades saurely isnt a logical alternative i think I doubt there was any question as to this. > >>In a split decision the committee ruled that "Pass" was a logical >>alternative and adjusted the result to EW +170. I'm told that the dissenter >>insisted in going on record, so we should see her reasoning when the >>appeals booklet comes out. > >I would dissent too >Perhaps a bit silly, but i dont see the real problem, unless EW have a >system in which they can end in 3S with W holding a zero count and 5 spades :) Presumably, they did. :) The diamond texture is nice, but it would be nice to have at least one of my honors in one of my long suits, and that doubleton heart jack in particular is of dubious value. I'd consider it clear that pass is an LA. Cheers, Bill Segraves Guilford, CT From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 5 21:37:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 21:37:52 +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 VAA10285 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 21:37:45 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h6.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id PAA09212; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 15:37:33 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <37092DDA.12A4@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 14:40:43 -0700 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: birthday References: <199903301713.MAA02507@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Nanki, David and all:) Chia sends her greetings Happy birthday:) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 02:13:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:13:33 +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 CAA13316 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:13:25 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA09185; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:12:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-02.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.66) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009102; Mon Apr 5 11:12:05 1999 Received: by har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE7F5D.80BB57C0@har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:11:58 -0400 Message-ID: <01BE7F5D.80BB57C0@har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Barry Wolk'" Subject: RE: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:11:48 -0400 Encoding: 49 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not all. I have been a certified director for almost 20 years and have NEVER received one. Perhaps you mean all high level directors? --- Craig ---------- From: Barry Wolk[SMTP:wolkb@cc.UManitoba.CA] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 1999 3:26 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation Linda Trent wrote: > >Where is that written? Interpretive guidelines for implementing the > >Laws are supposed to be provided by the LC, not by word-of-mouth > >agreements among AC members. The correct procedure is this: SOs go > >to the LC when an interpretive guideline is needed, the LC issues a > >guideline, the guideline is published. A good example is the > >clarification of the words "logical alternative" that was provided > >by the LC. This procedure is not always being followed by the ACBL. > > At the Vancouver Laws Commission meeting the Orlando Laws Commission > meeting minutes were approved which contains the following item: [snip] > I don't know how ACBL members get information from Laws Commission meeting > minutes. I guess Gary Blaiss might be the place to start as he attends all > the meetings. > > Linda All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about recent ACBL LC decisiobs are included in these mailings. The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the latest such update. Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions by the ACBL LC. -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 02:37:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:37:11 +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 CAA13351 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:37:05 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA13138; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:36:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-02.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.66) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012962; Mon Apr 5 11:35:20 1999 Received: by har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE7F60.B9C47300@har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com>; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:35:02 -0400 Message-ID: <01BE7F60.B9C47300@har-pa2-02.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "'Adam Wildavsky'" , Barry Wolk Cc: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: ACBL Tech Files (was Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 12:20:05 -0400 Encoding: 33 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why is this information not available through the acbl web site? It surely does not seem like anything that should be hidden from the members. ---------- From: Adam Wildavsky[SMTP:adam@visalia.com] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 1999 10:55 PM To: Barry Wolk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Tech Files (was Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation) At 8:26 PM -0500 4/3/99, Barry Wolk wrote: >All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about >recent ACBL LC decisiobs are included in these mailings. > >The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk >copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD >ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the >latest such update. > >Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions >by the ACBL LC. One of my pet peeves with the ACBL is their making "stealth" regulations, that is, rules or interpretations that TDs are aware of only occasionally and players not at all. In an attempt to address this problem several years ago I arranged with Sol Weinstein to post an excerpt of the Tech Files to the rec.games.bridge archives. I expect they're still there, and by now they're seriously out of date. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 02:59:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA13427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:59:14 +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 CAA13422 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:59:07 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA29939 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:55:14 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904051655.LAA29939@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: RE: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 11:55:13 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Not all. I have been a certified director for almost 20 years and have NEVER received one. Perhaps you mean all high level directors? > > --- > Craig > > All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about > recent ACBL LC decisiobs are included in these mailings. > > The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk > copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD > ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the > latest such update. > > Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions > by the ACBL LC. > -- > Barry Wolk > Winnipeg Manitoba Canada > > I second Craig's comment--I've never got any such mailing either [although I have been a certified TD for a much shorter time], nor have any disks filtered down to me yet. I, too, assume Barry must be referring to higher-level TD's, although one wouldn't think a monthly mailing to TD's would bankrupt the ACBL. :) More than one ACBL high-level TD has warned me off-list about accepting legal interpretations put forth on this List. "It is dominated by TD from outside of ACBL jurisdiction [and by ACBL members who aren't TD's], and so the interpretations may not be valid in the ACBL", they have argued. This is interesting, in light of the fact that this List is an excellent forum for learning about decisions of the WFBLC. [And, like it or not, interpretations of the WFBLC _are_ binding on the ACBL. If only I could stop seeing that as the World F&*%&( Bridge Laws Comission....] On top of this, I have learned much more about ACBL LC decisions on this List than I have from the ACBL. -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 07:04:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:04:04 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14021 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:03:57 +1000 Received: from toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca (wolkb@toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.19]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA03335 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:03:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from wolkb@localhost) by toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA24347 ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:03:42 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 16:03:42 -0500 (CDT) From: Barry Wolk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First I wrote: > All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about > recent ACBL LC decisiobs are included in these mailings. > > The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk > copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD > ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the > latest such update. > > Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions > by the ACBL LC. Then Craig Senior wrote > Not all. I have been a certified director for almost 20 years and have NEVER > received one. Perhaps you mean all high level directors? Then Grant Sterling wrote: > I second Craig's comment--I've never got any such mailing either > [although I have been a certified TD for a much shorter time], nor have > any disks filtered down to me yet. I, too, assume Barry must be referring > to higher-level TD's, although one wouldn't think a monthly mailing to > TD's would bankrupt the ACBL. :) When I said "ACBL TD" I meant tournament directors, not club directors. The phrase "certified TD" refers to club directors. I am at a rather low level among ACBL tournament directors. So how can interested ACBL members (on this list, CS, GS, MLF etc) that are not ACBL TDs get this info? There is a publication called "Club Managers Digest" which is mailed to club managers, not to club directors. It includes info considered relevant for clubs. Items considered relevant for players usually get published in The Bulletin. Clubs that have purchased ACBLScore receive updated versions yearly. This update contains the complete Tech files. And you can browse the ACBL web site for some of this info: some relevant pages are Minutes of Board of Directors meetings, ACBL regulations, Tournament regulations, etc. Finally, you can download an update of ACBLScore, which contains the complete Tech files. However, this last method requires that you have already purchased a previous version of this program. How do players (other than TDs) in Europe receive corresponding info, such as the recent WBF LC interpretations? -- Barry Wolk Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 07:16:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:16:41 +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 HAA14042 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 07:16:35 +1000 Received: from ip75.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.75]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990405211628.PXGA9985.fep4@ip75.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:16:28 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: law 25, being aged and flatness Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 23:16:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <370927ab.309715@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 10:47:53 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >I do have some warmth for a view put to >me that there might be an exclusion of "time spent in >contemplation of the correction of inadvertency" from >the meaning of "pause". ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Such a change would allow me to correct the majority of my inadvertent calls - so if it can be done without making L25A too complex I'm for it. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 11:40:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:40:50 +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 LAA14501 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:40:44 +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 10UKqv-00063W-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 01:40:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:36:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990404230557.007b76d0@cshore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.19990404230557.007b76d0@cshore.com>, Bill Segraves writes >>>Open Pairs II. 2nd final session. >>> >>>Brd 20 KT3 >>>Dlr W K932 >>>Vl Both Q64 >>> 865 >>> 98542 AQ76 >>> J5 A874 >>> T982 AK >>> K2 A97 >>> J >>> QT6 >>> J753 >>> QJT43 >>> >>>P P 2N P >>>3H! P 3S P >>>3N P 4S all pass >>> 170, and I'd expect the AC to keep the deposit in the UK. 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 Apr 6 12:27:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:27:30 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14620 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:27:24 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial72.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.72]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA28462; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990404230557.007b76d0@cshore.com> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:26:38 -0400 To: "John Probst" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 9:36 PM -0400 4/5/99, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>>Open Pairs II. 2nd final session. >>>> >>>>Brd 20 KT3 >>>>Dlr W K932 >>>>Vl Both Q64 >>>> 865 >>>> 98542 AQ76 >>>> J5 A874 >>>> T982 AK >>>> K2 A97 >>>> J >>>> QT6 >>>> J753 >>>> QJT43 >>>> >>>>P P 2N P >>>>3H! P 3S P >>>>3N P 4S all pass >170, and I'd expect the AC to keep the deposit in the UK. Cheers John I would expect the same, had EW appealed. How many pounds sterling would NS lose, since they (my partner and I) were the ones to file the appeal? - Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 12:27:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:27:28 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14619 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:27:22 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial72.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.72]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA28187; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:27:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990405010503.00ab32e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 22:17:46 -0400 To: Anton Witzen From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:05 PM -0400 4/4/99, Anton Witzen wrote: >Did east really pause for 10 seconds with this hand???? Yes. >Then he probably was thinking about bidding 4S instead of 3S >Did the TD ask what he(she) was thinking about??? that looks important to me. The TD did not ask, but the committee did. I don't think it's relevant what East was thinking but rather the nature of the information, if any, conveyed to West by the hesitation. The usual example is "Suppose East was trying to remember where she'd parked her car." What relevance would that have to the ruling? >passing in 3NT with 4 spades surely isnt a logical alternative i think No one suggested that it was. In any case East, who has received no unauthorized information, may surely bid as she pleases. >I would dissent too >Perhaps a bit silly, but i dont see the real problem, unless EW have a >system in which they can end in 3S with W holding a zero count and 5 spades :) Presumably they do, since that's standard in the US. Even if they don't I think the committee has a decision to make, since is some auctions passing a forcing bid may be a logical alternative. What should West do with xxxxx xxx xxx xx, or for that matter JT9xx xxx xxx xx? What do Acol players do with such hands? Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 13:39:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:39:00 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA14779 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:38:54 +1000 Received: from jayapfelbaum ([12.79.62.138]) by mtiwmhc07.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990406033813.EXVU26438@jayapfelbaum> for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 03:38:13 +0000 Message-ID: <009b01be7fde$b89cbea0$8a3e4f0c@jayapfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: 1998 Reno Case Book Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:36:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0097_01BE7FBD.2F6A6180" 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_0097_01BE7FBD.2F6A6180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thought everyone might like to know (at least I hope so). The 1998 Reno Case Book will be available on the Internet in the "members only" section of the ACBL Home Page. I checked today, and while the book is not yet "up" I hope it will be soon. Speaking as its Editor, I hope your comments will be fair. If you want me to reply to any comments, please say so. Thanks for your patience. Jay Apfelbaum ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01BE7FBD.2F6A6180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thought everyone might like to know (at least I hope = so). The=20 1998 Reno Case Book will be available on the Internet in the "members = only"=20 section of the ACBL Home Page. I checked today, and while the book is = not yet=20 "up" I hope it will be soon.
 
Speaking as its Editor, I hope your comments will be = fair. If=20 you want me to reply to any comments, please say so.
 
Thanks for your patience.
 
Jay Apfelbaum
------=_NextPart_000_0097_01BE7FBD.2F6A6180-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 13:47:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:47:39 +1000 Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com (smtp5.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA14801 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:47:33 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehob.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.11]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA07691 for ; Mon, 5 Apr 1999 23:47:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990405232435.006d039c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 23:24:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 In-Reply-To: References: <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:55 PM 3/30/99 +0100, David S wrote: > 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? To which I would add: Six. What should be the standard of proof in assessing a claim of inadvertency? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 15:26:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 15:26:55 +1000 Received: from pm02sm.pmm.cw.net (pm02sm.pmm.cw.net [208.159.98.151]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA14982 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 15:26:40 +1000 Received: from uymfdlvk (usr3-dialup3.mix1.Bloomington.cw.net [166.62.18.131]) by PM02SM.PMM.CW.NET (PMDF V5.2-29 #35316) with SMTP id <0F9R00B3N5R9RQ@PM02SM.PMM.CW.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 05:25:59 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 22:20:27 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs To: BLML Message-id: <011d01be7fed$2f86e960$83123ea6@uymfdlvk> Organization: the end of his wits MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote > I don't think it's relevant what East was thinking but rather the nature of > the information, if any, conveyed to West by the hesitation. The usual > example is "Suppose East was trying to remember where she'd parked her > car." What relevance would that have to the ruling? What would there be to rule on? If East if trying to remember where she parked the car, there is no UI, so there can be no infraction. Which gets to the heart of the problem of hesitation rulings. Why is it that the opponents *always* know exactly what my partner's hesitations mean? I sure don't. My partner that day was my girlfriend. She has just over 200 points, a total which increased 6% the previous day when we had a section top to qualify for the final. She thinks about what she is supposed to bid. She thinks about what my bids mean, what systems we play, how to play them, when to play them, why to play them. She worries that she will make the wrong bid and be embarasses. She worries that she will make the wrong bid and embarass me. She tries to remember whether the systems that are working over 1NT are also working over 2NT. And to top it all off, she was terrified playing in the finals of a national event for the first time. But not to worry, the opponents invariably know exactly, to the 9 spot, what her hesitations mean. In the spirit of full disclosure, I sure wish they would tell me. Chris From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 16:10:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:10:55 +1000 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA15062 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:10:45 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-37.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.37]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id CAA01651; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 02:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3708FE99.858485C4@idt.net> Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 11:19:05 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Pisarra CC: BLML Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <011d01be7fed$2f86e960$83123ea6@uymfdlvk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me share a few thoughts on this. I have a partner, now in his 80's, with whom I've played since the 60's. He hesitates, has always hesitated, and I have NEVER been able to figure out what he was thinking about. I might add that he is a very GOOD player, and his game still shows very few signs of his advanced age. His huddles, however, are a complete mystery to me, and always have been. Once, when playing against Dick Katz, Dick started trying to guess what my partner's holding was from my partner's huddle, and I told him to save his energy - and I was right - his hand looked nothing like what Dick was imagining. I guess the point is, when partner huddles, there is the "appearance" of UI, and so we start figuring out what the LA's are and make our decisions/rulings. It really doesn't matter WHAT partner may have been thinking about. Have I got this right? Irv Chris Pisarra wrote: > > Adam wrote > > I don't think it's relevant what East was thinking but rather the nature > of > > the information, if any, conveyed to West by the hesitation. The usual > > example is "Suppose East was trying to remember where she'd parked her > > car." What relevance would that have to the ruling? > > What would there be to rule on? If East if trying to remember where she > parked the car, there is no UI, so there can be no infraction. > > Which gets to the heart of the problem of hesitation rulings. Why is it > that the opponents *always* know exactly what my partner's hesitations mean? > I sure don't. > > My partner that day was my girlfriend. She has just over 200 points, a > total which increased 6% the previous day when we had a section top to > qualify for the final. > > She thinks about what she is supposed to bid. She thinks about what my > bids mean, what systems we play, how to play them, when to play them, why to > play them. She worries that she will make the wrong bid and be embarasses. > She worries that she will make the wrong bid and embarass me. She tries to > remember whether the systems that are working over 1NT are also working > over 2NT. And to top it all off, she was terrified playing in the finals of > a national event for the first time. > > But not to worry, the opponents invariably know exactly, to the 9 spot, > what her hesitations mean. In the spirit of full disclosure, I sure wish > they would tell me. > > Chris From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 17:55:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:55:16 +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 RAA15209 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:55:10 +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 <19990406075449.JFLP11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 00:54:49 -0700 Message-ID: <3709BED8.571FC230@home.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:59:20 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) References: <3.0.5.32.19990405010503.00ab32e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > B.t.w. I usually play that after transferring after a 2NT bid you cant > stop under game, that is standard in acol. > Your opinions on the case itself aside (imo you don't understand L16 or the concept of LAs), and also leaving aside your own preferred methods (to which you are of course entitled), I must beg you to *please* not put the Acol system in any further disrepute than so many others who claim to play it have already done! The 2NT philosophy you advocate has absolutely nothing to do with the Acol system. I have played Acol all my life, in several parts of the world, and have never come across this treatment as far as I can remember. Go ahead and used it, but *please* don't blame the results on "Acol". From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 18:21:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:21:12 +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 SAA15250 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:21:07 +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 <19990406082057.JITA11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 01:20:57 -0700 Message-ID: <3709C4F8.D2992005@home.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 01:25:28 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <011d01be7fed$2f86e960$83123ea6@uymfdlvk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra wrote: > Which gets to the heart of the problem of hesitation rulings. Why > is it > that the opponents *always* know exactly what my partner's hesitations > mean? I sure don't. > She thinks about what she is supposed to bid. She thinks about > what my > bids mean, what systems we play, how to play them, when to play them, > why to > play them. She worries that she will make the wrong bid and be > embarasses. > She worries that she will make the wrong bid and embarass me. She > tries to > remember whether the systems that are working over 1NT are also > working > over 2NT. And to top it all off, she was terrified playing in the > finals of > a national event for the first time. Chris - I'm sure all the above is true, and assume so is Adam. However, that is all irrelevant. L16 is full of "could have" sentences, i.e. it doesn't matter one iota what pard was *actually* thinking about, nor that you would *always* go on to game, etc. That is why you must *not* take the AC's ruling to in any way suggest that your, or pard's, actions were not completely "ethical", "innocent" etc, etc. I think it is also important that you explain this to your less experienced partner. Like it or not, the standard of L16 (ACBL) is not whether *you* consider pass an LA - only whether it is (in the AC's opinion) a bid that a significant number of your peers would seriously consider. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 21:35:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:35:48 +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 VAA15651 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:35:39 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([212.68.156.160]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id NAA13394; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:35:25 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3709F1AC.83FF1636@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:36:12 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Trent CC: Bridge Laws discussion group Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <199904010318.WAA13906@primus.ac.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Linda As long as I remember a discussion with Ton , 2 months ago , this is the "true spirit of this Law"... Dany Linda Trent wrote: > > At 05:51 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote: > > >I did not know that L25B2(b)(2) is to be ignored. Where is that > >written? > > > > **** Note: this is not official opinion or statement - but, I think it is > accurate. > > I didn't say "ignored". I just said the ACBL interpretation does not agree > with the WBF interpretation. ACBL does not agree that it only applies in > passing a cuebid or forgetting to correct a blackwood response back to > trumps, etc.. In ACBL you can change any bid before LHO calls (and get > your average minus). For example, if you look at your hand and see 9 HCP > and pass, then, if you discover a couple aces before LHO calls, you can > change your bid and take your average minus. > > Linda From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 21:58:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:58:39 +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 VAA15721 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:58:31 +1000 Received: from pefs13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.240] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10UUUk-0003jd-00; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:58:18 +0100 Message-ID: <004101be8024$a98b28c0$f08d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Chris Pisarra" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:51:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Chris Pisarra Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 05 April 1999 01:41 Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs +++ Without inferring anything about the outcome of this particular appeal I do think the case is typical of those where committee members must get out of their own preconceptions and into the minds of the players. I would be reluctant to form a view without a full appreciation of the resources of system available to the partnership after a 2NT opener and the partnership treatment of various kinds of responder's holdings. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 21:58:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:58:40 +1000 Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA15720 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 21:58:31 +1000 Received: from pefs13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.240] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10UUUi-0003jd-00; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:58:17 +0100 Message-ID: <004001be8024$a8b0f560$f08d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: deathly hush on blml Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:43:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Date: 04 April 1999 03:06 Subject: Re: deathly hush on blml > +++ Actually I thought the traffic was heavy enough although most of mine was not circulating generally on blml. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 6 23:17:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 23:17:02 +1000 Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15911 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 23:16:52 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.127]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id PAA21194; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 15:16:39 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <370A0963.EDB9A9F8@internet-zahav.net> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 16:17:23 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Dennis" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> <007a01be7a8c$a632a6a0$6cb259c3@default> <3.0.1.32.19990405232435.006d039c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To your question Mike : Dany's Law 0 - " the game is for players ,not for lawyers." i explain people the law and then let them decide to change the call or not. After the board is over I check evidence for the inadvertence glancing at the cards : if I see 5 cards H & 2 Sp , there is no doubt the "wrong" 1Sp was inadvertent ! The trouble is when I see something like : x-Kxx-Axx-AKQxxx and the player put 1NT on the table then asking to change it to 1Cl ..... now it becomes a question of "personal taste" for the TDs but I still believe the TD would proceed the same way I do , then to decide whatever his bridge playing experience guides him and decide for the final table score.!! Happy passover all Dany Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > At 02:55 PM 3/30/99 +0100, David S wrote: > > 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? > > To which I would add: > Six. What should be the standard of proof in assessing a claim of > inadvertency? > > Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 02:33:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:33:51 +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 CAA18755 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:33:45 +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 10UYnA-0004UA-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:33:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 04:15:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Adam Wildavsky writes > >>passing in 3NT with 4 spades surely isnt a logical alternative i think > that's not the point. Bidding 3NT is the problem. Pass is a logical alternative to 3NT and the pause suggests pard was thinking of the transfer break. So you can't bid 3N over 3S now. >No one suggested that it was. In any case East, who has received no >unauthorized information, may surely bid as she pleases. > of course >>I would dissent too >>Perhaps a bit silly, but i dont see the real problem, unless EW have a >>system in which they can end in 3S with W holding a zero count and 5 spades :) > what would you bid over 2NT with xxxxxx x xxx xxx. and you wouldn't mind pard bidding 4 with a 4-card fit either. -- 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 Apr 7 02:33:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:33:44 +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 CAA18747 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:33:37 +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 10UYn3-0000ZW-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:33:30 +0000 Message-ID: <$69uCLANtXC3Ewhh@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 04:11:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Adam Wildavsky writes >At 9:36 PM -0400 4/5/99, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>>>>Open Pairs II. 2nd final session. >>>>> >>>>>Brd 20 KT3 >>>>>Dlr W K932 >>>>>Vl Both Q64 >>>>> 865 >>>>> 98542 AQ76 >>>>> J5 A874 >>>>> T982 AK >>>>> K2 A97 >>>>> J >>>>> QT6 >>>>> J753 >>>>> QJT43 >>>>> >>>>>P P 2N P >>>>>3H! P 3S P >>>>>3N P 4S all pass > >>170, and I'd expect the AC to keep the deposit in the UK. Cheers John > >I would expect the same, had EW appealed. How many pounds sterling would NS >lose, since they (my partner and I) were the ones to file the appeal? > >- Adam Wildavsky GBP 20-00 for a National, I'd expect the appeal discussion [after proper procedure had been followed] to consist of a shrug and "shall we keep the deposit?" NS have a good case to argue against 620, and would get it back since the score would be adjusted back to 170. At the Young Chelsea 5-00 for a Friday Night. The AC drinks it afterwards :) (but we would give it back for this one as there is some case to argue) -- 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 Apr 7 02:42:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:42:37 +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 CAA18797 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:42:32 +1000 Received: from MarvinL (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA13179 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001c01be804c$67c22880$6c2fd2cc@MarvinL.French.san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 09:42:04 -0700 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 Barry Wolk wrote: >Linda Trent wrote: > >> >Where is that written? Interpretive guidelines for implementing the >> >Laws are supposed to be provided by the LC, not by word-of-mouth >> >agreements among AC members. The correct procedure is this: SOs go >> >to the LC when an interpretive guideline is needed, the LC issues a >> >guideline, the guideline is published. A good example is the >> >clarification of the words "logical alternative" that was provided >> >by the LC. This procedure is not always being followed by the ACBL. >> >> At the Vancouver Laws Commission meeting the Orlando Laws Commission >> meeting minutes were approved which contains the following item: > >[snip] > >> I don't know how ACBL members get information from Laws Commission meeting >> minutes. I guess Gary Blaiss might be the place to start as he attends all >> the meetings. >> >> Linda > >All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about >recent ACBL LC decisions are included in these mailings. There are many AC members, club TDs, and mere players who would like to know of these decisions but who don't get the ACBL TD mailings. LC decisions should be published in *The Bridge Bulletin*, or at least on the ACBL website > >The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk >copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD >ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the >latest such update. > >Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions >by the ACBL LC. Did that, but it does not include all LC decisions, just a subset. I am going to suggest to Gary Blaiss that a complete record of *all* LC decisions be published on the ACBL website. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 02:46:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:46:48 +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 CAA18838 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:46:40 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa18359; 6 Apr 99 9:46 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 Apr 1999 22:17:46 PDT." Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 09:46:07 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904060946.aa18359@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A couple thoughts on this thread: Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Even if they don't I > think the committee has a decision to make, since is some auctions passing > a forcing bid may be a logical alternative. What should West do with xxxxx > xxx xxx xx, or for that matter JT9xx xxx xxx xx? What do Acol players do > with such hands? I disagree with this part of what Adam said. It just doesn't make sense to me that a TD/AC can require someone (who has not previously psyched) to pass a forcing bid. If you play agreements where your only alternatives with weak hands like this are to pass 2NT or force to game, then you gotta live with your agreements. To say that someone who fails to violate their agreements is thereby in violation of the Laws---well, I don't think the Laws were intended to go that far. Jan Kamras wrote: > Chris - I'm sure all the above is true, and assume so is Adam. However, > that is all irrelevant. L16 is full of "could have" sentences, i.e. it > doesn't matter one iota what pard was *actually* thinking about, nor > that you would *always* go on to game, etc. That is why you must *not* > take the AC's ruling to in any way suggest that your, or pard's, actions > were not completely "ethical", "innocent" etc, etc. I think it is also > important that you explain this to your less experienced partner. Like > it or not, the standard of L16 (ACBL) is not whether *you* consider pass > an LA - only whether it is (in the AC's opinion) a bid that a > significant number of your peers would seriously consider. I think this is open to interpretation. Not the part about LA's---I think most of us agree that the LA's are determined based on what a player's peers would bid in that situation, not just on a player's statement that he was always going to bid the way he actually did. But it doesn't follow that the meaning of the hesitation is irrelevant, at least not if someone has a history that would indicate what the hesitation might mean. L16A discusses actions that "could demonstrably have been suggested" by extraneous information, and my interpretation is that whether something could demonstrably be suggested *is* affected by what a player's hesitation is likely to mean. At least, I don't think it's been established that this interpretation is incorrect. Say there is an identical auction at three tables, with North making an identical 10-second hesitation before a certain pass. North at Table 1 is an expert who normally always bids in tempo. North at Table 2 is a player with a medical condition that causes his brain to freeze at random for short periods of time, during which time he is unable to think. This causes frequent random hesitations whenever he plays bridge. North at Table 3 is my lovely wife, who has played bridge maybe 15 times in her life. (Don't ask me why she got the seeded table.) At Table 1, the hesitation may demonstrably suggest a certain action over another LA, and South would be violating the Laws if he took the suggested action. But at Tables 2 and 3, does the hesitation "demonstrably suggest" the same thing? Indeed, does it "demonstrably suggest" anything at all? At Table 2, the hesitation could have been because North was thinking, or because he was having a seizure. I'm not sure how the Laws should be applied in a case like this, but it seems unfair to require South to have his options restricted every time North's unfortunate medical condition kicks in. At Table 3, when my wife hesitates, it's hard to imagine that the hesitation is because of a "problem" in the same sense that the expert at Table 1 has a problem. The fact is, my wife just doesn't know enough about the game to have this kind of problem. If my wife hesitates before opening 1NT, she's probably trying to remember that an ace is 4, a king is 3, etc., and you have to have 15 points, etc.; in more complicated auctions, she wouldn't really have a clue what she's supposed to do (even if she had a 0-count). So in this situation, I don't think her hesitation would demonstrably suggest anything. My conclusion is that the meaning of a hesitation is *not* irrelevant, and that the set of actions that could be demonstrably suggested by a hesitation is *not* independent of who's doing the hesitating. -- The other Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 03:04:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:04:27 +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 DAA18892 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:04:21 +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 10UZGn-0007XK-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:04:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:20:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) References: <3.0.5.32.19990405010503.00ab32e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990405010503.00ab32e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >Did east really pass for 10 seconds with this hand???? >Then he probably was thinking about bidding 4S instead of 3S >Did the TD ask what he(she) was thinking about??? that looks important to me. Why? The UI is what West thinks the pause shows, not what East was actually thinking about - that is irrelevant. [s] >>The directing staff agreed that the hesitation demonstrably suggested >>bidding over passing, but they did not consider pass a logical alternative. > >I dont think either. >B.t.w. I usually play that after transferring after a 2NT bid you cant stop >under game, that is standard in acol. Not in England: it is completely standard to stop below game after a transfer here. [s] >I would dissent too >Perhaps a bit silly, but i dont see the real problem, unless EW have a >system in which they can end in 3S with W holding a zero count and 5 spades :) Most people do, and I am sure that is what the hand is about. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 03:04:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:04:37 +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 DAA18899 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:04:28 +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 10UZGr-000ODD-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:04:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:12:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <000401be7e95$79739f40$45b259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <000401be7e95$79739f40$45b259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: > >Thank you for the helpful advice. And now? It is getting worse! To be honest, when a thread gets like this one, you just have to distil what is useful out of it, being persuaded by certain arguments. This type of thread has devolved into several discussions about different things. This is not always the case, and other threads have reached consensuses, or at least majority opinions. I don't think this thread is going very far on the original problem. In fact, few of the current discussions are about it at all. As soon as I get a little more time, I am going to post a fairly longish opinion on the whole matter, but from experience sometimes that merely adds fuel tot the fire, other times others have tended to agree. I will say one thing: unlike some interpretations I do *not* think the original one in this case is important. The position is too rare, and not worrying about this one is probably a good idea. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 03:04:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:04:38 +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 DAA18893 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:04:24 +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 10UZGn-0007XL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:04:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:47:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <011d01be7fed$2f86e960$83123ea6@uymfdlvk> In-Reply-To: <011d01be7fed$2f86e960$83123ea6@uymfdlvk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra wrote: >Adam wrote >> I don't think it's relevant what East was thinking but rather the nature >of >> the information, if any, conveyed to West by the hesitation. The usual >> example is "Suppose East was trying to remember where she'd parked her >> car." What relevance would that have to the ruling? > > What would there be to rule on? If East if trying to remember where she >parked the car, there is no UI, so there can be no infraction. Indeed. Why is there no UI? If she says "Oh dear, I cannot remember where I parked my car" then partner knows that is the reason for the delay. But to allow that whenever a player has a problem, and their partner makes an apparently improper bid, that we are going to allow them a get-out because we cannot be absolutely sure about what they are thinking is a nonsense. > Which gets to the heart of the problem of hesitation rulings. Why is it >that the opponents *always* know exactly what my partner's hesitations mean? >I sure don't. Of course they do not know exactly. If the bidding goes 1S p 3S 4C; 4S P P and partner thinks for some time with an agonised look on his face before doubling in a nervous way then *of course* we assume for ruling purposes that the player had a problem with his double. In fact it may be that he just had a sudden stomach-ache but it is not very likely. > My partner that day was my girlfriend. She has just over 200 points, a >total which increased 6% the previous day when we had a section top to >qualify for the final. Please give her my congratulations. I hope she enjoyed herself. > She thinks about what she is supposed to bid. She thinks about what my >bids mean, what systems we play, how to play them, when to play them, why to >play them. She worries that she will make the wrong bid and be embarasses. >She worries that she will make the wrong bid and embarass me. She tries to >remember whether the systems that are working over 1NT are also working >over 2NT. And to top it all off, she was terrified playing in the finals of >a national event for the first time. Very normal. > But not to worry, the opponents invariably know exactly, to the 9 spot, >what her hesitations mean. In the spirit of full disclosure, I sure wish >they would tell me. Who said that opponents know exactly? That is a ridiculous supposition. But I shall bet you one thing: I bet she worries more when she has a problem that when there is no imaginable problem whatever. Furthermore, it helps if she learns one or two things about ethics: perhaps you might like to let her know that if she finds herself thinking during the auction about where she has parked the car it would be best if she says "Oh, I am sorry, I was thinking about where I left the car": then the opponents will smile and think nothing of it. At one time bridge was played with a healthy dose of Old Black Magic: better players knew what was going on from everything that happened at the table, including partner's demeanour, tone of voice, hesitations, quick bids and so on, and they used them all. We have tried to stamp that out. To do so we have to have practical and workable UI Laws. We don't ask for proof in UI positions [or any other, for that matter]: we don't accuse people of questionable ethics: but we do rule based on reasonable suppositions. Ethical players prefer that we do so because otherwise the OBM will rule again. Accordingly if they get ruled against occasionally when they feel they were as pure as driven snow then they should accept it and carry on. In the actual hand your partner had a problem [whether to break] and took a long time before calling. Perhaps that was a coincidence: perhaps she was always bidding 3S and she was wondering whether you approved of her lead on the previous hand: but we must accept that UI rulings must be based on the appearance of UI, and undue thought before making a call suggests [a] doubt and [b] consideration of an alternative. When there is only one apparent alternative the evidence is stronger that the reason for the hesitation is known: however it is not proved. On the actual hand I believe that the ruling of the AC was right. You had UI - no, not proved what she was thinking about, but that does not matter. 3NT and Pass are both LAs, certainly in NAmerica, and in my view in the Rest of the World also. Since the only alternative to your girlfriend bidding 3S is some form of break, the UI suggests 3NT over Pass. Thus 3NT is improper and the ruling of 170 becomes automatic. Neither you nor your girlfriend has done anything unethical. She has thought at an unfortunate moment, and you have failed to judge the effects of L73C and come to the wrong conclusion as to which calls were proper for you to make. I hope that your girlfriend accepts losing the appeal, which it was correct that she should, and goes on to a long, enjoyable and successful bridge career - please tell her so. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 03:42:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:42:36 +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 DAA19015 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:42:27 +1000 Received: from MarvinL (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA25229 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 10:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a801be8054$c65f5fe0$6c2fd2cc@MarvinL.French.san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 10:33:42 -0700 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 Dany Haimovici wrote: > >As long as I remember a discussion with Ton , 2 months ago , >this is the "true spirit of this Law"... > >Dany > >Linda Trent wrote: >> >>In ACBL you can change any bid before LHO calls (and get >> your average minus). For example, if you look at your hand and see 9 HCP >> and pass, then, if you discover a couple aces before LHO calls, you can >> change your bid and take your average minus. >> It seems to me that an inadvertent declarer play should be treated in the same way as an inadvertent bid: If declarer has subsequently played a card from either hand, the inadvertent play must stand. If the lawmakers had dreamed that anyone would claim "inadvertency" after a hand is over, I'm sure they would have made clear that you can't do this. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 03:50:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:50:52 +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 DAA19044 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 03:50:46 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA24048; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:49:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from irv-ca50-56.ix.netcom.com(207.94.86.56) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma023996; Tue Apr 6 12:49:18 1999 Message-ID: <370A4782.F1AD4B03@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 10:42:26 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix21.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: <000401be7e95$79739f40$45b259c3@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I will say one thing: unlike some interpretations I do *not* think the > original one in this case is important. The position is too rare, and > not worrying about this one is probably a good idea. > I've also noticed that some writers believe the decision in Vancouver Appeal # 5 will (or has) set a precedent. Nonsense. Compare this decision to those in other types of cases, such as UI from hesitations. ACs decide both for and against tempo-breakers in these cases, and none of their decisions set a precedent. The facts of each case drive the decision for that case only. Moreover, citing a prior decision in the hope that it may be persuasive is a wasted effort. Even if the AC had a record of the prior decision (I've never seen this occur), small variations in the fact pattern will make each case distinguishable from others. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 05:41:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 05:41:53 +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 FAA19427 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 05:41:46 +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 <19990406194139.ONVR11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 12:41:39 -0700 Message-ID: <370A6481.736A7ED@home.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 12:46:09 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <011d01be7fed$2f86e960$83123ea6@uymfdlvk> <3709C4F8.D2992005@home.com> <004b01be8048$e8577940$cb133ea6@uymfdlvk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra wrote: > Doesn't that standard apply if and only if I have extraneous > information which demonstrably suggests one call over another? yes - but "demonstrably" means that "objective" evidence can be provided (i.e. what the "face-value" of the hesitation would be to your peers) rather than evidence to which only you are privvy (i.e. that pard is *as likely* to be thinking about where she parked the car as about whether or not to complete pard's transfer). I think this is a sensible method in most cases, but I agree it means that absolute equity is not always achieved. > I understand the law. And the reasoning behind it. That > doesn't mean I have to like it, or the way it is applied. Very true. I just hope you feel the same way when the shoe is on the other foot, and your opponent takes out his pard's slow T/O X when pass is an LA (iyo) and the TD/AC accepts his argument that "pard is always uncertain and hesitates all the time" or similar. :-) Btw, how *do* you think the law should be constructed and/or applied? Most of us seem to think it could be improved so I'm sure ideas would be welcome. > If I had passed 3S, and partner had come down with a subminimum > that she > miscounted, it would have been "clear" to everyone that she could only > have > been thinking about that fact. Then 3NT would have been forced upon > me. If that happened you would have been the victim of a *really* bad TD/AC. Now *you* could have challenged them to demonstrate how the hesitation "demonstrably" shows pard miscounted and has less than promised. If your cynicism is based on your own AC experiences it is a sad state of affairs indeed, but then your criticism should only be directed against the "application" part of the matter, not the law itself as well. I don't think *anyone* here on BLML would rule against you if you passed and it happened to work, and if opponent's appealed I think we'd *all* keep their deposit. (I haven't read the other posts yet - hope I won't have to eat-up my words!). > My complaint is with the > trend in the game to accept the Wolffian doctrine "If it hesitates, > shoot it." With this sentiment I *wholeheartedly* agree! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 06:13:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 06:13:38 +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 GAA19534 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 06:13:31 +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 <19990406201325.OWSC11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 13:13:25 -0700 Message-ID: <370A6BF3.84A5A0F4@home.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:17:55 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <9904060946.aa18359@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam I am full of sympathy for the thoughts you describe below, but there are 2 problems which (imo) makes it impossible to apply them fairly, objectively and uniformly: 1) We would need to accept potentially self-serving statements as evidence, to the exlusion of "objective" criteria. 2) Even if the hesitation often is "innocent", *some* of the time it will be for the "expected" reason. Those times you will benefit unfairly from having chosen the action objectively suggested. The other times you get whatever the "normal" result is. Overall, your odds have improved by, say, taking-out the slow penalty-double - although not by as much as those of the player who's pard was experienced and always bid in tempo. Adam Beneschan wrote: > I think this is open to interpretation. Not the part about LA's---I > think most of us agree that the LA's are determined based on what a > player's peers would bid in that situation, not just on a player's > statement that he was always going to bid the way he actually did. > But it doesn't follow that the meaning of the hesitation is > irrelevant, at least not if someone has a history that would indicate > what the hesitation might mean. L16A discusses actions that "could > demonstrably have been suggested" by extraneous information, and my > interpretation is that whether something could demonstrably be > suggested *is* affected by what a player's hesitation is likely to > mean. At least, I don't think it's been established that this > interpretation is incorrect. > > Say there is an identical auction at three tables, with North making > an identical 10-second hesitation before a certain pass. North at > Table 1 is an expert who normally always bids in tempo. North at > Table 2 is a player with a medical condition that causes his brain to > freeze at random for short periods of time, during which time he is > unable to think. This causes frequent random hesitations whenever he > plays bridge. North at Table 3 is my lovely wife, who has played > bridge maybe 15 times in her life. (Don't ask me why she got the > seeded table.) At Table 1, the hesitation may demonstrably suggest a > certain action over another LA, and South would be violating the Laws > if he took the suggested action. But at Tables 2 and 3, does the > hesitation "demonstrably suggest" the same thing? Indeed, does it > "demonstrably suggest" anything at all? At Table 2, the hesitation > could have been because North was thinking, or because he was having a > seizure. I'm not sure how the Laws should be applied in a case like > this, but it seems unfair to require South to have his options > restricted every time North's unfortunate medical condition kicks in. > At Table 3, when my wife hesitates, it's hard to imagine that the > hesitation is because of a "problem" in the same sense that the expert > at Table 1 has a problem. The fact is, my wife just doesn't know > enough about the game to have this kind of problem. If my wife > hesitates before opening 1NT, she's probably trying to remember that > an ace is 4, a king is 3, etc., and you have to have 15 points, etc.; > in more complicated auctions, she wouldn't really have a clue what > she's supposed to do (even if she had a 0-count). So in this > situation, I don't think her hesitation would demonstrably suggest > anything. My conclusion is that the meaning of a hesitation is *not* > irrelevant, and that the set of actions that could be demonstrably > suggested by a hesitation is *not* independent of who's doing the > hesitating. > > -- The other Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 07:17:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:17:05 +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 HAA19759 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:16:58 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa04381; 6 Apr 99 14:16 PDT To: blml CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Apr 1999 13:17:55 PDT." <370A6BF3.84A5A0F4@home.com> Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 14:16:24 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904061416.aa04381@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > 2) Even if the hesitation often is "innocent", *some* of the time it > will be for the "expected" reason. Well, not when my wife is playing. You have to have a certain level of experience and understanding of the game to be able to hesitate for the "expected" reason, and my wife isn't there yet. None of this applies to Adam's actual case, though. Certainly, if Chris' partner has 200 MP's, she's been playing enough to be able to have problems like "should I super-accept a transfer or not?" I'll acknowledge that the examples I included are rather extreme cases that might warrant applying the Laws in a different way than usual. Also, I don't mean to demean my wife at all---actually, I appreciate that she went to some trouble to try to learn a little about my main hobby. (I don't expect her to progress much further with it, though, at least not for another 18 years until the kids are off in college.) -- the other Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 07:34:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:34:25 +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 HAA19796 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 07:34:17 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([212.68.156.61]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id XAA29339 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 23:34:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <370A7DFD.E6DD8EE5@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 00:34:53 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: vancouver NABC Appeal#5 References: <00a801be8054$c65f5fe0$6c2fd2cc@MarvinL.French.san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well ..... My first/basic principle is that a LAW MUST be respected as long as it wasn't changed. I agree with Jon's Brissman statement that the Vancouver AC's decision, even if it is a precedent , didn't change the laws' interpretation and an experienced TD should judge every case according to the most possible evidences and data he can find (by the way He or She !). But the way it was decided , as much as I could read the text on the Swiss Fed.'s web , is not too pleasant to me , according with the principle above. I can suggest my own guess only , why the lawmakers allowed the change af calls only and not the "piece touchee , piece jouee" - I mean not an inadvertent designation of cards : The cards have natural and very well known names ; the calls and the bids are words and/or expressions for a conventional way to manage the auction - so it is a higher probability to use a mistaken combination of these words , or to take out the wrong cartoon. By the way - the lawmakers thought very carefully about the cards' designation to avoid any doubts about the wrong expressions and wrote a long (relative) law about L46 . They also paid much attention to the retraction of cards played , after an irregularity L47. I deduce from these laws' existence that there is a profound differentiation between calls/bids and cards' designation... Maybe some of the veterans of the WBFLC or Kaplan's friends ("very thin hint") can inform us more about this outstanding difference. Dany Marvin L. French wrote: > > Dany Haimovici wrote: > > > >As long as I remember a discussion with Ton , 2 months ago , > >this is the "true spirit of this Law"... > > > >Dany > > > >Linda Trent wrote: > >> > >>In ACBL you can change any bid before LHO calls (and get > >> your average minus). For example, if you look at your hand and see 9 > HCP > >> and pass, then, if you discover a couple aces before LHO calls, you > can > >> change your bid and take your average minus. > >> > It seems to me that an inadvertent declarer play should be treated in > the same way as an inadvertent bid: If declarer has subsequently played > a card from either hand, the inadvertent play must stand. If the > lawmakers had dreamed that anyone would claim "inadvertency" after a > hand is over, I'm sure they would have made clear that you can't do > this. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 09:15:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:15:57 +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 JAA20002 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:15:50 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10Uf4E-0004YY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 01:15:38 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990407011319.00abc500@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 01:13:19 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs (was Vancouver NABC Appeal#5) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990405010503.00ab32e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.5.32.19990405010503.00ab32e0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:20 06-04-99 +0100, you wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: > >>Did east really pass for 10 seconds with this hand???? >>Then he probably was thinking about bidding 4S instead of 3S >>Did the TD ask what he(she) was thinking about??? that looks important to me. > > Why? The UI is what West thinks the pause shows, not what East was >actually thinking about - that is irrelevant. > > [s] > >>>The directing staff agreed that the hesitation demonstrably suggested >>>bidding over passing, but they did not consider pass a logical alternative. >> >>I dont think either. >>B.t.w. I usually play that after transferring after a 2NT bid you cant stop >>under game, that is standard in acol. > > Not in England: it is completely standard to stop below game after a >transfer here. > > ok, in that situation, i admit i have to concur. I already said it i think, but wasnt perhaps too clear. regards, anton [s] > >>I would dissent too >>Perhaps a bit silly, but i dont see the real problem, unless EW have a >>system in which they can end in 3S with W holding a zero count and 5 spades :) > > Most people do, and I am sure that is what the hand is about. > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 >Emails to bluejak on OKB >Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 09:27:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:27:06 +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 JAA20036 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:27:01 +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 10UfF8-0003Gh-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 23:26:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 00:22:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Two cards visible MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The defender attempts to play the D8. However, he discovers that he has played two cards simultaneously, the D8 and the D6. Both are visible [**]. How do you rule? If given a choice of card to play the defender will choose the D6. This one should be easy, but there is a twist that occurred to us over the weekend. Perhaps JohnP and RobinB could defer comments for a time since they have been involved in discussions. [Actually, RobinB is keeping his head down: having a meteorologist in the family is no fun when they told us we were going to get the *best* Easter weather *ever*: we were not too impressed with one day of drizzle and three of cloud!] [**] The official EBU interpretation is that to be "visible" a card must be identifiable. So if you can see it is a diamond, but not which one, it is not "visible". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 11:19:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 11:19:47 +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 LAA20249 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 11:19:25 +1000 Received: from p62s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.99] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10Ugzs-0002h8-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:19:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two cards visible Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 02:20:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8094$db24f4e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 12:52 AM Subject: Two cards visible > > The defender attempts to play the D8. However, he discovers that he >has played two cards simultaneously, the D8 and the D6. Both are >visible [**]. How do you rule? As one of the few who were not in London this weekend, I will jump in at the deep end and start the ball rolling. I am quite sure my world will soon collapse because I think this one is easy. Law 58B2 says that the offender can chose the card he proposes to play. ( I see no reason to assume that this has to be the card he originally intended to play ) We are told that he will choose the D6. Law 50 says that the D8 is a minor penalty card. Information gained by seeing the penalty card is UI., but information gained by seeing the D6 is not. The use of the signalling system in operation is subject to the scrutiny of the TD if the NOS claim damage. We are told that he intended to play D8, and when asked which card he proposes to play he chose D6. I wonder how we know which card he intended, but I do not see this to be a problem. "L58B2. More Cards Visible If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)." Anne > > If given a choice of card to play the defender will choose the D6. >This one should be easy, but there is a twist that occurred to us over >the weekend. Perhaps JohnP and RobinB could defer comments for a time >since they have been involved in discussions. > > [Actually, RobinB is keeping his head down: having a meteorologist in >the family is no fun when they told us we were going to get the *best* >Easter weather *ever*: we were not too impressed with one day of drizzle >and three of cloud!] > > >[**] The official EBU interpretation is that to be "visible" a card >must be identifiable. So if you can see it is a diamond, but not which >one, it is not "visible". > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 >Emails to bluejak on OKB >Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 12:29:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:29:21 +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 MAA20391 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:29:17 +1000 Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp205.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.26.217]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA17966 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:27:01 +1000 Message-ID: <000b01be809e$41116640$d91a25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Bridge Laws Group" Subject: Vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:26:41 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01BE80F1.E3D344E0" 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_0008_01BE80F1.E3D344E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Having followed this discussion for some time I fell that most agree = that a strange decision was made by the directing staff and this was = compounded by an equally odd decision by the appeals committee. To try to understand these could someone answer a few questions which I = feel are relevant. 1. Was the match held late at night? 2. Was the appeal held late at night? 3. Was there some time pressure on the committee for a decision. I find that in Australia most decisions that are difficult to understand = in the clear light of day were made under the influence of at least one = of these conditions. Sean Mullamphy. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BE80F1.E3D344E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Having followed this discussion for = some time I=20 fell that most agree that a strange decision was made by the directing = staff and=20 this was compounded by an equally odd decision by the appeals=20 committee.
 
To try to understand these could = someone answer=20 a few questions which I feel are relevant.
 
1. Was the match held late at=20 night?
2. Was the appeal held late at=20 night?
3. Was there some time pressure on = the committee=20 for a decision.
 
I find that in Australia most = decisions that are=20 difficult to understand in the clear light of day were made under the = influence=20 of at least one of these conditions.
 
Sean = Mullamphy.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BE80F1.E3D344E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 12:42:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:42:31 +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 MAA20428 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:42:14 +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 SAA25429 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:42:02 -0800 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 18:42:02 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > [**] The official EBU interpretation is that to be "visible" a card > must be identifiable. So if you can see it is a diamond, but not which > one, it is not "visible". > Does the ACBL have the same interpretation? I actually have had this come up a couple of times, where a card was partially exposed. At the table I think I ruled the card was exposed, but wasn't sure what to do. Do we treat this the same way if the partially exposed card is a) a diamond but we can't tell which one, b) a diamond face card but we can't tell which one, c) a diamond spot card but we can't tell which one, d ) a red six, but we can't tell which one? In the last case, at least, I feel that so much is known about the card that its identity can very likely be deduced from the other cards legally known (maybe you have the six of hearts in your own hand, or, more subtly, maybe you led the A-K of hearts earlier and the owner of the red six had followed with the T-J) and so feel that this ought to be an exposed card. But when we bring deduction into it, we open up some slippery logic puzzles and come darn close to having to rule all partially exposed cards are fully exposed. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 14:43:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA20679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 14:43:43 +1000 Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA20674 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 14:43:35 +1000 Received: from default (vp190-135.worldonline.nl [195.241.190.135]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA01128 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 06:43:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002901be80b1$8cd9c000$8bbef1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: Subject: Re: Two cards visible Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 06:45:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 12:52 AM >Subject: Two cards visible > > >> >> The defender attempts to play the D8. However, he discovers that he >>has played two cards simultaneously, the D8 and the D6. Both are >>visible [**]. How do you rule? > >As one of the few who were not in London this weekend, I will jump in at the >deep end and start the ball rolling. I am quite sure my world will soon >collapse because I think this one is easy. >Law 58B2 says that the offender can chose the card he proposes to play. ( I >see no reason to assume that this has to be the card he originally intended >to play ) We are told that he will choose the D6. Law 50 says that the D8 is >a minor penalty card. Information gained by seeing the penalty card is UI., >but information gained by seeing the D6 is not. >The use of the signalling system in operation is subject to the scrutiny of >the TD if the NOS claim damage. >We are told that he intended to play D8, and when asked which card he >proposes to play he chose D6. I wonder how we know which card he intended, >but I do not see this to be a problem. >"L58B2. More Cards Visible >If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes >to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty >card (see Law 50)." > >Anne > I agree with Anne on the ruling. However, I do not WANT to know which card the offender originally wished to play, I only want to know which card he eventually wants to play. I do not know how his original intention became known, but I would try to avoid this information becoming available. Now that the offender told us he *intended* to play the D8 there's a good thing to be said for making this card a *major* penalty card under L58B2/L50. (Also, of course, there is the usual bit to be said about UI that has become available to his partner - unless he has been trying to fool declarer with his remark, in which case we have some other Laws we will apply afterwards) Finally, now that offender stated he did intend to play D8 and not D6, but is changing his mind, as it were, Law 47F may well be applied, making D8 the card played, and D6 a penalty card. As I said, though, I would never ask a player which card he *originally intended* to play, in order to avoid these complications. Jac Fuchs >> >> If given a choice of card to play the defender will choose the D6. >>This one should be easy, but there is a twist that occurred to us over >>the weekend. Perhaps JohnP and RobinB could defer comments for a time >>since they have been involved in discussions. >> >> [Actually, RobinB is keeping his head down: having a meteorologist in >>the family is no fun when they told us we were going to get the *best* >>Easter weather *ever*: we were not too impressed with one day of drizzle >>and three of cloud!] >> >> >>[**] The official EBU interpretation is that to be "visible" a card >>must be identifiable. So if you can see it is a diamond, but not which >>one, it is not "visible". >> >>-- >>David Stevenson From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 17:45:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:45:38 +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 RAA21004 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:45:19 +1000 Received: from modem59.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.59] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Un1C-0008VB-00; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:45:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Canberra Bridge Club" , "Bridge Laws Group" Subject: Re: Vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 08:43:41 +0100 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 ................................................................. "Do not think what you want to think until you know what you ought to know" - Crow. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- From: Canberra Bridge Club To: Bridge Laws Group Subject: Vancouver NABC Appeal#5 Date: 07 April 1999 03:26 Having followed this discussion for some time I fell that most agree that a strange decision was made by the directing staff and this was compounded by an equally odd decision by the appeals committee. ................................. \x/ ......................................... I find that in Australia most decisions that are difficult to understand in the clear light of day were made under the influence of at least one of these conditions. Sean Mullamphy. ++++ Yeah, but just think, if clocks had been invented in your hemisphere 'clockwise' could have been in the other direction. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ p.s. I do hear that some members of the ACBL Laws Commission voiced the thought that it might meet on the matter. Indeed, under Law 81C9 the Chief Director could perhaps have thought the Law involved worthy of referral for review by that body. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 20:19:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:19:11 +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 UAA21295 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:19:02 +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 10UpQ5-0000Wm-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:18:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:46:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two cards visible References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > >On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, David Stevenson wrote: >[snip] >> [**] The official EBU interpretation is that to be "visible" a card >> must be identifiable. So if you can see it is a diamond, but not which >> one, it is not "visible". >> > >Does the ACBL have the same interpretation? I actually have had this come >up a couple of times, where a card was partially exposed. At the table I >think I ruled the card was exposed, but wasn't sure what to do. > >Do we treat this the same way if the partially exposed card is a) a >diamond but we can't tell which one, b) a diamond face card but we can't >tell which one, c) a diamond spot card but we can't tell which one, d ) a >red six, but we can't tell which one? > >In the last case, at least, I feel that so much is known about the card >that its identity can very likely be deduced from the other cards legally >known (maybe you have the six of hearts in your own hand, or, more subtly, >maybe you led the A-K of hearts earlier and the owner of the red six had >followed with the T-J) and so feel that this ought to be an exposed card. >But when we bring deduction into it, we open up some slippery logic >puzzles and come darn close to having to rule all partially exposed cards >are fully exposed. It is pretty difficult to get [d], I should think. But identifiable means from seeing the card, nothing else. The fact that a H6 was played to the last trick does not make a red six identifiable now. I can confirm that in none of the cases you cite is the card indentifiable therefore in no case is it visible, per EBU interpretation. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 20:19:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:19:05 +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 UAA21291 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:18:58 +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 10UpPz-0002ZF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:18:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 10:48:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two cards visible References: <002901be80b1$8cd9c000$8bbef1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <002901be80b1$8cd9c000$8bbef1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs wrote: >Anne Jones wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >>> The defender attempts to play the D8. However, he discovers that he >>>has played two cards simultaneously, the D8 and the D6. Both are >>>visible [**]. How do you rule? >> >>As one of the few who were not in London this weekend, I will jump in at >the >>deep end and start the ball rolling. I am quite sure my world will soon >>collapse because I think this one is easy. >>Law 58B2 says that the offender can chose the card he proposes to play. ( I >>see no reason to assume that this has to be the card he originally intended >>to play ) We are told that he will choose the D6. Law 50 says that the D8 >is >>a minor penalty card. Information gained by seeing the penalty card is UI., >>but information gained by seeing the D6 is not. >>The use of the signalling system in operation is subject to the scrutiny of >>the TD if the NOS claim damage. >>We are told that he intended to play D8, and when asked which card he >>proposes to play he chose D6. I wonder how we know which card he intended, >>but I do not see this to be a problem. >>"L58B2. More Cards Visible >>If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he >proposes >>to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty >>card (see Law 50)." >I agree with Anne on the ruling. >However, I do not WANT to know which card the offender originally wished to >play, >I only want to know which card he eventually wants to play. >I do not know how his original intention became known, but I would try to >avoid this information becoming available. You will only get this info as TD if you ask him. >Now that the offender told us he *intended* to play the D8 there's a good >thing to be said for making this card a *major* penalty card under >L58B2/L50. >(Also, of course, there is the usual bit to be said about UI that has become >available to his partner - unless he has been trying to fool declarer with >his remark, in which case we have some other Laws we will apply afterwards) > >Finally, now that offender stated he did intend to play D8 and not D6, but >is changing his mind, as it were, Law 47F may well be applied, making D8 the >card played, and D6 a penalty card. As I said, though, I would never ask a >player which card he *originally intended* to play, in order to avoid these >complications. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 7 22:08:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:08:41 +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 WAA21612 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:07:39 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.220]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id NAA18380; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:58:41 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <370B4897.9B46FE02@internet-zahav.net> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:59:19 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: blml Subject: Re: Divinity help us please (was:"Poster child" for ACs) References: <9904061416.aa04381@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk During these holly days for all the religions , I try to get a most powerful help , to guide our actions as TDs and ACs members , when dealing with the UI and LA troubles. I tried many times to "squeeze" an answer from the WBFLC if there can be UI if there was not irregularity or "bad manners/conduct" , but very unsuccessfully . My personal opinion is that there must be an official guide for laws' implementation for different levels of tournaments (or any SO decisions) how to deal with this subjects very specifically. If we want bridge as a popular sport or hobby WE MUST DO IT . Maybe many of my colleagues will get angry or furious or...reading the following sentences : 1.I can tell you that in almost all clubs , the TD rules -these items- accordingly to the commercial or social aims of the clubs. The trouble is that when a lot of players arrive to national level tournaments they don't understand why are they "screwed" when think or hesitate. 2.At national levels , there are some TDs who decide accordingly to the name of the contestant , not strictly accordingly to the law !!! YE , YE you all know it ....... 3.And for what I call neutral point of view : I don't think that "thinking" is a crime , in spite of my intimate knowledge that when my partner thinks too much it will go wrong ... So - if we want this game to be popular and enjoyable and pleasant and sporting too - I suggest to try to find the way to establish the "divine" guidelines , the way I tried to lead to , or in any other real right way . Btw , I am sure that members of WBFLC and all others who dealt with this item are more experienced than I am , but sometimes the Columbus' egg solution can "push the cart out of the mud" ; of course ...if the carter is really interested..!!!!! Happy Easter , Passover , Bayram ,....... Dany Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Jan Kamras wrote: > > > 2) Even if the hesitation often is "innocent", *some* of the time it > > will be for the "expected" reason. > > Well, not when my wife is playing. You have to have a certain level > of experience and understanding of the game to be able to hesitate for > the "expected" reason, and my wife isn't there yet. > > None of this applies to Adam's actual case, though. Certainly, if > Chris' partner has 200 MP's, she's been playing enough to be able to > have problems like "should I super-accept a transfer or not?" I'll > acknowledge that the examples I included are rather extreme cases that > might warrant applying the Laws in a different way than usual. > > Also, I don't mean to demean my wife at all---actually, I appreciate > that she went to some trouble to try to learn a little about my main > hobby. (I don't expect her to progress much further with it, though, > at least not for another 18 years until the kids are off in college.) > > -- the other Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 01:26:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 01:26:05 +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 BAA24297 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 01:25:56 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10UuD7-0007Yp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:25:49 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990407172331.00aab780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 17:23:31 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:15 06-04-99 +0100, you wrote: >In article , Adam Wildavsky > writes >> >>>passing in 3NT with 4 spades surely isnt a logical alternative i think >> >that's not the point. Bidding 3NT is the problem. Pass is a logical >alternative to 3NT and the pause suggests pard was thinking of the >transfer break. So you can't bid 3N over 3S now. > >>No one suggested that it was. In any case East, who has received no >>unauthorized information, may surely bid as she pleases. >> >of course > >>>I would dissent too >>>Perhaps a bit silly, but i dont see the real problem, unless EW have a >>>system in which they can end in 3S with W holding a zero count and 5 spades :) >> >what would you bid over 2NT with xxxxxx x xxx xxx. and you wouldn't mind >pard bidding 4 with a 4-card fit either. > > with this hand i wont miss 4S. Partner will bid 3NT after 3H with good 4-cd support (i hope at least that will be standard in UK ) if it makes or not. I dont understand the rest of your question (probably a language problem) regards, anton >-- >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 Apr 8 03:40:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 03:40:36 +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 DAA25070 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 03:40:28 +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 10UwJI-000083-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:40:21 +0000 Message-ID: <3UxMJcA9g5C3Ewi4@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:39:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: fifth friday In-Reply-To: <370B459C.B3306AAF@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <370B459C.B3306AAF@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > > >Nancy T Dressing wrote: >> >> Are we going to have a fifth Friday game in April??? Time is fast >> approaching.... Nancy > >Of course we are ! > >watch this space. Can London be British and have it on the Thursday? Acol & the YC hereby register. The Easter break was somewhat enlivened btw by the presence of Herman and the Partying Belgians who came to stay with me and play in the UK Easter Congress. Ask Herman about the Hermansohl and HermanBerg conventions :)) hehe -- 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 Apr 8 04:21:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 04:21:19 +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 EAA25269 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 04:21:11 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21294 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:17:10 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904071817.NAA21294@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:17:10 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Adam > > I am full of sympathy for the thoughts you describe below, but there are > 2 problems which (imo) makes it impossible to apply them fairly, > objectively and uniformly: > > 1) We would need to accept potentially self-serving statements as > evidence, to the exlusion of "objective" criteria. While we could change the laws of bridge [perhaps in the ways suggested by the recent 'counterpoint' article] to enforce purely objective criteria in place of more subjective ones requiring the evaluation of evidence, that has not taken place as of yet. So I see no reason why we should worry about accepting self-serving statements as _evidence_. If, as a TD/AC member, I can be convinced that a player habitually hesitates for reasons other than the 'standard' ones, and can be convinced that on some given hand the player's partner cannot actually derive any 'UI' from the hesitation, then I will rule that a hesitation cannot have 'demonstrably suggested' anything at all. Of course, merely saying "I didn't know what her hesitation meant" is unlikely to be sufficient, but at the same time I will not ignore it completely. > 2) Even if the hesitation often is "innocent", *some* of the time it > will be for the "expected" reason. Those times you will benefit unfairly > from having chosen the action objectively suggested. The other times you > get whatever the "normal" result is. Overall, your odds have improved > by, say, taking-out the slow penalty-double - although not by as much as > those of the player who's pard was experienced and always bid in tempo. If we grant the first part of this claim, I agree that the rest follows. If we have a player who _sometimes_ hesitates for "expected" reasons, and sometimes hesitates "randomly", then the hesitation will still suggest [perhaps weakly] a certain bid. {I, as I have said before, think that if the suggestion is tremendously weak, it does not meet the 'demonstrably suggested' test, but that's not what we're discussing here.} OTOH, if the player seems for some reason to be _just as likely_ to hold the opposite of the expected hand as to hold the expected one, then 'guessing right' by 'bidding what you would have anyway' is not 'benefitting unfairly' from the hesitation. > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Say there is an identical auction at three tables, with North making > > an identical 10-second hesitation before a certain pass. North at > > Table 1 is an expert who normally always bids in tempo. North at > > Table 2 is a player with a medical condition that causes his brain to > > freeze at random for short periods of time, during which time he is > > unable to think. This causes frequent random hesitations whenever he > > plays bridge. North at Table 3 is my lovely wife, who has played > > bridge maybe 15 times in her life. (Don't ask me why she got the > > seeded table.) At Table 1, the hesitation may demonstrably suggest a > > certain action over another LA, and South would be violating the Laws > > if he took the suggested action. But at Tables 2 and 3, does the > > hesitation "demonstrably suggest" the same thing? Indeed, does it > > "demonstrably suggest" anything at all? At Table 2, the hesitation I don't think so, no. Just as [to use DWS' comment] I would not rule against someone who bid something after partner hesitated and then [apparently truthfully] said "Oh, sorry, I was worrying about where I parked my car". A hesitation is not by itself an infraction assuring redress. Of course, these are minority cases. In the vast majority, we can figure out from publicly available evidence what the hesitation _probably_ meant, and apply 'objective standards' from there. > > she's supposed to do (even if she had a 0-count). So in this > > situation, I don't think her hesitation would demonstrably suggest > > anything. My conclusion is that the meaning of a hesitation is *not* > > irrelevant, and that the set of actions that could be demonstrably > > suggested by a hesitation is *not* independent of who's doing the > > hesitating. The meaning of the hesitation _this time_ is irrelevant. But it is not irrelevant what a player could have expected the hesitation to mean, and that does vary according to who is doing the hesitating. If, in this situation, my partner hesitates before bidding 3S, my bidding might be constrained because partner is not susceptible to random seizures or constant worry. [OTOH, my partner as a matter of fact never remembers to super-accept, either, so I really can't say what a hesitation would mean from him here.] If I bid on with a marginal hand I would expect to be ruled against, even if partner tells us that he was _in fact_ suffering a mild stroke [which could be medically confirmed]. > > -- The other Adam > -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 05:42:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 05:42:20 +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 FAA25534 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 05:42:13 +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 <19990407194205.CEDL11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 12:42:05 -0700 Message-ID: <370BB61B.F1629FB9@home.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 12:46:35 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Divinity help us please (was:"Poster child" for ACs) References: <9904061416.aa04381@flash.irvine.com> <370B4897.9B46FE02@internet-zahav.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm not sure we need to seek "divine" wisdom on this. Dany Haimovici wrote: > I tried many times to "squeeze" an answer from the WBFLC if there can > be UI if there was not irregularity or "bad manners/conduct" , but > very unsuccessfully . Maybe because this is already clear from the laws. A hesitation can convey UI. The response to an opponent's question can convey UI. There is nothing "irregular" or "bad mannered" about either. > 3.And for what I call neutral point of view : I don't think that > "thinking" is a crime , and neither does the law. The problem lies with many TDs/ACs that *apply* the law as if it was. Some of them do it out of ignorance - they should be educated. Some do it as part of an "agenda" - they should be warned and, if neccessary, removed. It is a seperate, and unfortunate, matter that the ACBL's "loose" definition of an LA is used by some as support when pursuing their agenda. In that case an official "clarification" might be in order (unless ACBL is supporting the same agenda). At the WBF/WBFLC level I feel there is no need. You are the best judge of whether it's neccessary at the IBF. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 08:34:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:34:27 +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 IAA26046 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:34:21 +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 <19990407223414.EEDU11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:34:14 -0700 Message-ID: <370BDE74.EB4EACE3@home.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:38:44 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <3.0.5.32.19990407172331.00aab780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: Concerning: > >what would you bid over 2NT with xxxxxx x xxx xxx. and you wouldn't > > mind pard bidding 4 with a 4-card fit either. > > > > > with this hand i wont miss 4S. Partner will bid 3NT after 3H with good > 4-cd support (i hope at least that will be standard in UK ) > if it makes or not. Anton - You cannot switch system between boards. According to yourself, you either pass 2NT, or make a GF transfer, ending in 4S also when opener's S-holding is Qx. So your alternatives are 2NT or 4S. Mine, and those of 99% of players (incl. the Acol ones), are 3S or 4S depending on opener's hand. Sorry to all for this slightly off topic posting. I suggest any further discussion on this residual matter moves to R.G.B. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 09:06:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:06:37 +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 JAA26090 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:06:31 +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 <19990407230625.EOKI11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:06:25 -0700 Message-ID: <370BE5FF.D0157DF2@home.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:10:56 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <199904071817.NAA21294@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > OTOH, if the player seems for some reason to be _just as likely_ > to hold the opposite of the expected hand as to hold the expected one, > then 'guessing right' by 'bidding what you would have anyway' is not > 'benefitting unfairly' from the hesitation. I agree with this, but consider it an unrealistic scenario. I suspect a hesitation will either signify doubt, or be totally random. Of course if the "doubt" in itself can go in either direction the UI still doesn't suggest anything, but this is surely not the case for a slow completion of a transfer. PS: Come to think of it, maybe some beginner could hesitate to complete the transfer also holding xx in the suit. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 14:01:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:01:30 +1000 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 OAA26740 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:01:22 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10V601-0007KE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:01:05 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990408055847.00837ca0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 05:58:47 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-Reply-To: <370BDE74.EB4EACE3@home.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990407172331.00aab780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 15:38 07-04-99 -0700, you wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: >Concerning: >> >what would you bid over 2NT with xxxxxx x xxx xxx. and you wouldn't >> > mind pard bidding 4 with a 4-card fit either. >> > >> > >> with this hand i wont miss 4S. Partner will bid 3NT after 3H with good >> 4-cd support (i hope at least that will be standard in UK ) >> if it makes or not. > sorry, you snipped a very important sentence, namely the one of John. I dont know what he means (a language problem) with his >>and you wouldn't >> > mind pard bidding 4 with a 4-card fit either. OK to be true, i checked this problem with lots of players, TD's and other people behind bars :) I have to tell you this. All (nearly) people above fight B pass on 3S if they know for sure that PD will bid 3S with 2/3S. If their partner have more s and still bid 3S that probably is the last time they play in that level with this PD. LevelB players always bid either 3NT or 4S (which in their view usually will make). So we can say that we can convert the problem to W. What does 3S mean (as Grattan said) Have EW agreements about this bid. This was never asked by TD or AC (at least we dont know this). Thats what bothers me. Someone said "the Wolff doctrine says, if they think, shoot them", but the WBL has put in their 1997 laws that thinking in itself isnt an imbreachment of laws. Only PD cant use the information than could be a result of the pause. I think that the TD has neglected his job by not asking what the interpretation of the 3S was for W. I heard someone i asked in Holland saying " TD's in america arent supposed to think about these situations, or thinking at all - they get payed to be friendly-", which, I think isnt very good for maintaining TD standards in the world (Holland an america are the most crowded countries, concerning the number of bridgeplayers), and i think the TD level in Holland is far better than in the US- but that is rather pernonal). So the problem comes down to the TD. Has he given enough thoughts about the meaning of the 3S bid. I think he didnt an thats what bothers me. B.t.w, In acol 2NT is usually 20-22, so then you really dont have a problem. Even with a 6-card and no HCP's you will end in 4S, if it makes or not. I hope you will be satisfied with tihs answer. One last remark from a TD: In america you pass and order beer for all. BTW, passing 2NT is an alternative too, and lots of players in A-level think that that is a good alternative. I heard even some good souls who should bid 3C. Is after 3H 3Sforcing then????? Eventually the problem is that we dont know the agreements of EW after 3H. If we dont know them, i dont think we can judge. And its the job of the TD to mention them. He didnt, so i think he forsake his job. regards anton Please put the rest of the discussion wherever you want, i dont mind an i wont mind :) even SCBL will do as last resort regards, anton >Anton - You cannot switch system between boards. According to yourself, >you either pass 2NT, or make a GF transfer, ending in 4S also when >opener's S-holding is Qx. So your alternatives are 2NT or 4S. Mine, and >those of 99% of players (incl. the Acol ones), are 3S or 4S depending on >opener's hand. > >Sorry to all for this slightly off topic posting. I suggest any further >discussion on this residual matter moves to R.G.B. > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 14:50:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA26839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:50:57 +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 OAA26833 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:50:50 +1000 Received: from default (pm30-3-29.ac.net [205.138.47.118]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA22662 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 00:50:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904080450.AAA22662@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:53:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990408055847.00837ca0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> References: <370BDE74.EB4EACE3@home.com> <3.0.5.32.19990407172331.00aab780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk So... If you are always going to bid game with this hand (which sort of seems to me to be West's position) would it be hopeless to start with Stayman and if pard bids 3S raise to four, but bid 3NT after any other response? I don't think I particularly want to be in 4S unless partner has four. That's what I think I might have done. But, I'm not qualified to be on NABC+ committees. Just wondering... Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 17:07:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA27059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:07:17 +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 RAA27054 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:07:05 +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 <19990408070657.KCXW11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 00:06:57 -0700 Message-ID: <370C569F.D12D7AD5@home.com> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 00:11:27 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <3.0.5.32.19990407172331.00aab780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.5.32.19990408055847.00837ca0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > B.t.w, In acol 2NT is usually 20-22, so then you really dont have a > problem. Even with a 6-card and no HCP's you will end in 4S, if it > makes or not. > I hope you will be satisfied with tihs answer. Sorry but I'm not. 20-21, 21-22, 20-22 who cares? It doesn't affect the merits of where to end opposite xxxxxx x xxx xxx. I'll tell you again, and pls "read my lips", *this has nothing to do with acol*! > BTW, passing 2NT is an alternative too, and lots of players in A-level > think that that is a good alternative. We're still talking about xxxxxx x xxx xxx ??? Sorry, but if lots of your A-level players pass 2NT with this it doesn't speak very highly of your A-level (and I happen to know that your A-level is high indeed, so will chose to assume that you might be misrepresenting it). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 20:24:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:24:15 +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 UAA27451 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:24:08 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-142.uunet.be [194.7.14.142]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13419 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:24:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <370C8356.565A0449@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 12:22:14 +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: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> <3.0.5.32.19990401161307.007b1d00@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > At 10:04 01/04/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > > > >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? > > > To answer what I think you mean: OK, L75D2 (not immediate rectification of > partner's misinformation) is a situation in which Law writers decided > avoiding UI transmission prevailed over agreement disclosure. On the other > side it can be said it's an exception to "full disclosure principle", and > this is why it was needed to precise what should be done in this > "exception" situation. In the other situations, the general principle is > 75C: partnership background disclosed. > It was so evident to law-makers that they sometimes omitted to repeat it. > 75D1: when a player realises his explanation was erroneous, he must call TD > who applies L21, that is to say, allows NOS's change of call. One can think > NOS will choose his substitute call after being told the right explanation, > but it is not said that OS should correct the explanation! > About UI, it can be said that the infraction is the use, not the > transmission (except "criminal" transmission): 73D1 "an hesitation does not > in itself constitute a violation" > Jean-Pierre certainly agrees that L75D2 would be broken, and he even begins to see that it may well supersede L75C. > >- do you agree that there are no automatic penalties for > >misinformation? > > > Agreed: only when there is damage. Except that, in some areas, it has > become common practice to award PP when misinformation results in no damage > (different explanations from both sides of the screen); but this > jurisprudence has nothing to do with the Laws. > indeed. > >- do you agree that a player acting on my advice has done > >nothing terribly ethically wrong? > > > Agreed: this is one of many situations in which somebody may be wrong in > very good faith, and, admittedly, not very badly wrong. Thanks. And then a valid point : > What hurts me the most in your heretic (IMO) school is that it hides > misunderstandings and favours "not very ethical" players. At the end of the > deal NOS will not have been aware of what really happened and maybe will > not know they have been damaged. An ethical player will then tell them the > whole story but another, a little less ethical (and not necesseraly a very > bad boy!) will be in the comfortable situation of dropping, without only > having taken the risk of commiting a previous infraction. > I can see that this may well be something that could happen. However, my full advice is : bid according to your own (belief of) system, explain according to partner's. The less-than-ethical player would probably follow a different strategy: he would explain AND bid according to the partner's (mis-)explanation. By deliberately explaining and bidding different systems, a player can only be showing an attempt at ethical behaviour. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 20:24:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:24:13 +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 UAA27450 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:24:06 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-142.uunet.be [194.7.14.142]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13400 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:23:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <370C81C2.69BE9CB4@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 12:15:30 +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: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> <3703289B.93777F8E@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: > > >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > > > >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? > > No. > Then we'd better close this discussion ! Amazing ! N : 3Cl E : What is 3clubs ? S : "asking for five cards in majors" S : 3He W : What is 3Hearts ? N : "four cards in hearts" L75D2 : "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made ..." And North is not breaking L75D2 ???? Come on David, be reasonable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 21:27:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:27:11 +1000 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 VAA27674 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:27:04 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10VCxW-0007IY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:26:58 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990408132439.00aad100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:24:39 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-Reply-To: <199904080450.AAA22662@primus.ac.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19990408055847.00837ca0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <370BDE74.EB4EACE3@home.com> <3.0.5.32.19990407172331.00aab780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:53 08-04-99 -0400, you wrote: >So... > >If you are always going to bid game with this hand (which sort of seems to >me to be West's position) would it be hopeless to start with Stayman and if >pard bids 3S raise to four, but bid 3NT after any other response? I don't >think I particularly want to be in 4S unless partner has four. That's what >I think I might have done. > >But, I'm not qualified to be on NABC+ committees. > >Just wondering... > >Linda > > neither am i, I'm afraid. I was a bit off the line against Jan K, yesterday, but i just broke (as it seems) my leg again (and it still hurts), perhaps that explains it. But perhaps you have a point, i heard some voices saying to bid 3C, but here all players play it as asking for 5cd major or 4cd major. so if PD has 1 major he bids 3D, and then you still dont know a thing. Best is to make sure your PD can bid either 3NT or 4X with a 4cd support in spades. But then, on the other hand you can never end in 3S. What a sport :) regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 22:03:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:03:19 +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 WAA27809 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:03:11 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-124.uunet.be [194.7.9.124]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA19750 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:03:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <370C927D.E9774185@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:26:53 +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: fifth friday References: <3UxMJcA9g5C3Ewi4@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > >Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >> > >> Are we going to have a fifth Friday game in April??? Time is fast > >> approaching.... Nancy > > > >Of course we are ! > > > >watch this space. > > Can London be British and have it on the Thursday? The British are more sensible than that (cfr Bristol and Penarth). London can be Londonish. > Acol & the YC hereby register. > > The Easter break was somewhat enlivened btw by the presence of Herman > and the Partying Belgians who came to stay with me and play in the UK > Easter Congress. > > Ask Herman about the Hermansohl and HermanBerg conventions :)) hehe And the Walloon Splinter and the Unnecessary Hermancount ! To say nothing about the JoCKB (has only three aces) > -- > 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 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 22:38:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:38:27 +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 WAA27969 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:38:19 +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 OAA15144 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:38:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01J9SLF15WJA000Q2R@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:37:10 +0100 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:37:10 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:36:46 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: What to say?... (UI) To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C17D@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 Dear Herman and others, Life is too difficult for just words, so we need interpretations (Kooijman); I allow Grattan to use this a couple of times as one of his headings and may be we make it our LC-statement. Given the fact that a player has to base his answers on his partnership agreements your example player doesn't have a choice. If he is sure the agreement is 4card, his answer should be 4card. The interpretation of 75d2 apparently has to be that a player may not do something with the intent to disclose the mistake made by his partner. Which sounds reasonable to me. Some of us get pale listening to partner no matter what he says, some of us start shaking our head. Both should be avoided, but the first reaction is uncontrolable, causing an irregularity and not worth a procedural penalty, the second is an offense and should be penalized. Both give UI. The 4-card answer shows that there are situations in bridge where a player can't avoid giving UI. Which is an interesting conclusion imo. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] Verzonden: donderdag 8 april 1999 12:16 Aan: Bridge Laws Onderwerp: Re: What to say?... (UI) David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > > > >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? > > No. > Then we'd better close this discussion ! Amazing ! N : 3Cl E : What is 3clubs ? S : "asking for five cards in majors" S : 3He W : What is 3Hearts ? N : "four cards in hearts" L75D2 : "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made ..." And North is not breaking L75D2 ???? Come on David, be reasonable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 8 23:40:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:40:10 +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 XAA28141 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:40:02 +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 NAA15254 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:39:25 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 NAA24338 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:37:45 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990408153937.007ce430@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 15:39:37 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) In-Reply-To: <370C8356.565A0449@village.uunet.be> References: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> <3.0.5.32.19990401161307.007b1d00@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:22 08/04/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> >> At 10:04 01/04/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> > >> >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : >> > >> >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? >> > >> To answer what I think you mean: OK, L75D2 (not immediate rectification of >> partner's misinformation) is a situation in which Law writers decided >> avoiding UI transmission prevailed over agreement disclosure. On the other >> side it can be said it's an exception to "full disclosure principle", and >> this is why it was needed to precise what should be done in this >> "exception" situation. In the other situations, the general principle is >> 75C: partnership background disclosed. >> It was so evident to law-makers that they sometimes omitted to repeat it. >> 75D1: when a player realises his explanation was erroneous, he must call TD >> who applies L21, that is to say, allows NOS's change of call. One can think >> NOS will choose his substitute call after being told the right explanation, >> but it is not said that OS should correct the explanation! >> About UI, it can be said that the infraction is the use, not the >> transmission (except "criminal" transmission): 73D1 "an hesitation does not >> in itself constitute a violation" >> > >Jean-Pierre certainly agrees that L75D2 would be broken, and >he even begins to see that it may well supersede L75C. > Sorry no to go so far as to fully agree with your reading of L75D2: I think it forbids to correct a wrong partner's explanation (before the right moment) but not to give an explanation of another bid which could be in contradiction with the explanation of the previous bid. In short, explicit correction is forbidden, not indirect correction. It could happen a player doesn't listen his partner's explanation (after all, it is UI!), then gives a true and sincere explanation of a subsequent bid. On another side, it seems he is obliged to listen and to receive UI, in order to be able to correct a possible wrong information at the right time (the title is "error noticed...": is it an infraction not to notice?) and to avoid actions which could have been suggested by UI! How more comfortable to play with screens. About L75D2, I think you draw the line (for corrections) where you think it should be, and the rest of us where the Laws say it is ("to correct", "to indicate" sound like direct and wilful actions) and (admittedly for me) where we also agree it should be. I agree the principle of full disclosure has its limits and the present Laws don't request the fullest possible disclosure. Otherwise, it should be procceded as following to inform opponents: partners consult themselves, consult written notes so as to be as certain as possible of their exact agreements before delivering them; then they carefully avoid actions that could have been suggested by all UI acquired in the process. I think it is wise to avoid a certain amount of UI transmission and the balance adopted between full disclosure and UI transmission by the present laws wiser than the one advocated by HDW. 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 Apr 9 02:24:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 02:24:58 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01063 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 02:24:14 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10VHb4-000Eer-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 16:24:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 16:22:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> <3703289B.93777F8E@village.uunet.be> <370C81C2.69BE9CB4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <370C81C2.69BE9CB4@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : >> > >> >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? >> >> No. >> > >Then we'd better close this discussion ! > >Amazing ! > >N : 3Cl > >E : What is 3clubs ? > >S : "asking for five cards in majors" > >S : 3He > >W : What is 3Hearts ? > >N : "four cards in hearts" > >L75D2 : "A player whose partner has given a mistaken >explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, >nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been >made ..." > >And North is not breaking L75D2 ???? > >Come on David, be reasonable. I do not believe it is reasonable that you deliberately encourage people on this list to break one of the basic tenets of the ethics of the game of bridge, namely that the opponents' have an absolute and complete right at any time to a full understanding of their opponents' system. You have chosen to support a minority position that goes against this principle. You have come up with an interpretation that you know is not supported by others, which you trot out from time to time to wind people like myself up. Now I do not care what you do as a player, but I would think that you ought to know better as a Director than to rule in a way contrary to the understandings of the Regulating authorities for whom you are working. What really worries me is that some people reading this list, especially the less experienced Directors, the players who are just interested and so on, will believe what you say. If one person on this list acts as you say at any one time and gets a better score as a result it will be a sad day for BLML even if we never hear about it. When one man comes up with an interpretation that challenges the basic ethics of the games, is an interpretation that he knows a majority of other people do not agree with, and conflicts with the normal interpretation of other Laws, I just hope that no-one else sees fit to follow him. If the 3H bid shows four cards in hearts then to say otherwise is lying, and if done in knowledge of the basic Laws of the game, unethical. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 06:19:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 06:19:35 +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 GAA01719 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 06:19:27 +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 <19990408201920.QQTC11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com>; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:19:20 -0700 Message-ID: <370D1056.530ECBDF@home.com> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:23:50 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael , blml Subject: Re: I'm back References: <36F67881.226792CF@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > After that, I will mail them to Switzerland (what is that > address again?) One would be: Federation Suisse de Bridge Klarastrasse 3 CH-8008 Zürich Att: Yvan Calame (I guess) Unless Yvan wants them to his private address. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 06:23:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 06:23:23 +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 GAA01742 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 06:23:15 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.127]) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.2/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA16183; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:22:57 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <370D104E.BB494780@internet-zahav.net> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 23:23:42 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anton Witzen CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs References: <3.0.5.32.19990407172331.00aab780@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <3.0.5.32.19990408055847.00837ca0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well , this is the REAL problem Anton Witzen wrote: > > At 15:38 07-04-99 -0700, you wrote: > >Anton Witzen wrote: > >Concerning: > >> >what would you bid over 2NT with xxxxxx x xxx xxx. and you > I have to tell you this. ......snipyyyyyy > Grattan said) Have EW agreements about this bid. This was never asked by TD > or AC (at least we dont know this). Thats what bothers me. Someone said > "the Wolff doctrine says, if they think, shoot them", but the WBL has put > in their 1997 laws that thinking in itself isnt an imbreachment of laws. > I heard someone i asked in Holland saying " TD's in america arent supposed > to think about these situations, or thinking at all - they get payed to be > friendly-", which, I think isnt very good for maintaining TD standards in > the world (Holland an america are the most crowded countries, concerning > the number of bridgeplayers), and i think the TD level in Holland is far > better than in the US- but that is rather pernonal). > So the problem comes down to the TD. Has he given enough thoughts about the > meaning of the 3S bid. > I think he didnt an thats what bothers me. anton I don't want to repeat myself , so please read my former message asking the help of Divinity.... But I understand the problem of being INDULGENT ( not necessary friendly , in spite of the fact I try to be always friendly - I smile and touch the player's shoulder even when I assign a PP of 100 IMP...!!!!) in the club games or for relative low level players or beginners. But what I suggested in my message is to do it BY THE LAWS in order to tell people that the TD acts more indulgent and at national/advanced level tournaments the laws are so and so and implemented 101%..... The corollary of this is : PUBLISH it in the laws and TELL people at club level !!!!! Dany From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 06:34:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 06:34:54 +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 GAA01767 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 06:34:47 +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 <19990408203441.QVGH11049.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:34:41 -0700 Message-ID: <370D13EF.F8100F4@home.com> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:39:11 -0700 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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C17D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sounds like a good round-up of this thread to me, so I hope we can end it (please, please Herman) right here (at least for this time :-)). Kooijman, A. wrote: > > Dear Herman and others, > > Life is too difficult for just words, so we need interpretations (Kooijman); > I allow Grattan to use this a couple of times as one of his headings and may > be we make it our LC-statement. > Given the fact that a player has to base his answers on his partnership > agreements your example player doesn't have a choice. If he is sure the > agreement is 4card, his answer should be 4card. The interpretation of 75d2 > apparently has to be that a player may not do something with the intent to > disclose the mistake made by his partner. Which sounds reasonable to me. > Some of us get pale listening to partner no matter what he says, some of us > start shaking our head. Both should be avoided, but the first reaction is > uncontrolable, causing an irregularity and not worth a procedural penalty, > the second is an offense and should be penalized. Both give UI. The 4-card > answer shows that there are situations in bridge where a player can't avoid > giving UI. Which is an interesting conclusion imo. > > ton > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Verzonden: donderdag 8 april 1999 12:16 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: Re: What to say?... (UI) > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >Please Jan, and some others, answer me these ones : > > > > > >- do you agree that L75D2, on its own, supports my position? > > > > No. > > > > Then we'd better close this discussion ! > > Amazing ! > > N : 3Cl > > E : What is 3clubs ? > > S : "asking for five cards in majors" > > S : 3He > > W : What is 3Hearts ? > > N : "four cards in hearts" > > L75D2 : "A player whose partner has given a mistaken > explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, > nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been > made ..." > > And North is not breaking L75D2 ???? > > Come on David, be reasonable. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 10:28:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:28:27 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA02473 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:28:20 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10VP9Z-0000mX-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:28:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 01:26:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990408055847.00837ca0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.19990408055847.00837ca0@cable.mail.a2000.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >At 15:38 07-04-99 -0700, you wrote: >>Anton Witzen wrote: >>Concerning: >>> >what would you bid over 2NT with xxxxxx x xxx xxx. and you wouldn't >>> > mind pard bidding 4 with a 4-card fit either. >>> > >>> > >>> with this hand i wont miss 4S. Partner will bid 3NT after 3H with good >>> 4-cd support (i hope at least that will be standard in UK ) >>> if it makes or not. >> > >sorry, you snipped a very important sentence, namely the one of John. > I dont know what he means (a language problem) with his >>>and you wouldn't >>> > mind pard bidding 4 with a 4-card fit either. I'm suggesting that most reasonable players would bid past 3S (3N, advanced cue-bid or just 4S, who cares) with a 4 or 5 card spade fit, and you wouldn't mind that at all. Equally you wouldn't mind it if you held xxxxxx x xxx xxx. But when pard bids 3S he has two or three spades only and pass is clearly (to me anyway) a logical alternative which has to be selected facing a slow 3S bid, holding either hand. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 10:28:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:28:44 +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 KAA02472 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:28:20 +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 10VP9Z-0004vF-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:28:14 +0000 Message-ID: <1Jec+XAGgUD3Ew68@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 01:21:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: "Poster child" for ACs In-Reply-To: <370C569F.D12D7AD5@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <370C569F.D12D7AD5@home.com>, Jan Kamras writes >Anton Witzen wrote: > >> B.t.w, In acol 2NT is usually 20-22, so then you really dont have a >> problem. Even with a 6-card and no HCP's you will end in 4S, if it >> makes or not. >> I hope you will be satisfied with tihs answer. that is nonsense. You'll end in 3S when pard has 2 or 3 spades. -- 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 Apr 9 13:38:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:38:55 +1000 Received: from slot0-46.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-46.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA02940 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 13:38:47 +1000 Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-46.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA18126 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:38:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:38:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings, This is obviously an undesirable situation. How are ordinary folks supposed to follow regulations that aren't published anywhere? Making them available to TDs, even if you include the local ones, is not sufficient. Publish everything on the ACBL webpage (as a single point of reference). Consideration should also be given to putting them where folks will actually read them, in the Bulletin. Publishing regulations has several advantages: People are more likely to follow them. Rulings are more likely to be consistent between the local and national levels. Bad regulations are likely to be seen as such and discarded. Fewer bad feelings are likely to result. Bruce On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Barry Wolk wrote: > Linda Trent wrote: > > > >Where is that written? Interpretive guidelines for implementing the > > >Laws are supposed to be provided by the LC, not by word-of-mouth > > >agreements among AC members. The correct procedure is this: SOs go > > >to the LC when an interpretive guideline is needed, the LC issues a > > >guideline, the guideline is published. A good example is the > > >clarification of the words "logical alternative" that was provided > > >by the LC. This procedure is not always being followed by the ACBL. > > > > At the Vancouver Laws Commission meeting the Orlando Laws Commission > > meeting minutes were approved which contains the following item: > > [snip] > > > I don't know how ACBL members get information from Laws Commission meeting > > minutes. I guess Gary Blaiss might be the place to start as he attends all > > the meetings. > > > > Linda > > All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about > recent ACBL LC decisiobs are included in these mailings. > > The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk > copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD > ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the > latest such update. > > Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions > by the ACBL LC. > -- > Barry Wolk > Winnipeg Manitoba Canada > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 20:07:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:07:40 +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 UAA03759 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:07:32 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-227.uunet.be [194.7.9.227]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25067 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:07:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <370CCCB9.67DC546@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 17:35:21 +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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C17D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > Dear Herman and others, > > Life is too difficult for just words, so we need interpretations (Kooijman); > I allow Grattan to use this a couple of times as one of his headings and may > be we make it our LC-statement. > Given the fact that a player has to base his answers on his partnership > agreements your example player doesn't have a choice. If he is sure the > agreement is 4card, his answer should be 4card. The interpretation of 75d2 > apparently has to be that a player may not do something with the intent to > disclose the mistake made by his partner. Which sounds reasonable to me. > Some of us get pale listening to partner no matter what he says, some of us > start shaking our head. Both should be avoided, but the first reaction is > uncontrolable, causing an irregularity and not worth a procedural penalty, > the second is an offense and should be penalized. Both give UI. The 4-card > answer shows that there are situations in bridge where a player can't avoid > giving UI. Which is an interesting conclusion imo. > > ton > OK, at last we now have some sort of official interpretation : L75C is more important than L75D2. I shall comply. I am certain that this is already in Grattan's notebook and that the WBFLC will endorse this (or the contrary) point of view. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 20:07:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:07:42 +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 UAA03760 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:07:35 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-227.uunet.be [194.7.9.227]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25073 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 12:07:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <370CCD59.12A3C0AF@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 17:38:01 +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: <199903311105.MAA15460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> <37026418.7A8A79C0@village.uunet.be> <3702B7C7.36791CEA@home.com> <3.0.5.32.19990401161307.007b1d00@phedre.meteo.fr> <3.0.5.32.19990408153937.007ce430@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oh, well, the discussion is now over, but : Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > About L75D2, I think you draw the line (for corrections) where you think > it should be, and the rest of us where the Laws say it is ("to correct", > "to indicate" sound like direct and wilful actions) and (admittedly for me) > where we also agree it should be. Oh, come on ... "in any manner" must include a statement from which partner can deduce. We have quite often ruled against people who have done far less active things than this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 20:36:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA03855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:36:26 +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 UAA03850 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:36:17 +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; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:36:09 +0100 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 LAA16265 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:35:11 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:32:35 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Come on David, be reasonable. > > I do not believe it is reasonable that you deliberately encourage > people on this list to break one of the basic tenets of the ethics of > the game of bridge, I understand that you feel strongly about this. But to be fair to Herman, if you sincerely believe in an interpretation of the laws, even if you're in a tiny minority and the majority are horrified by your interpretation, there is nothing unethical about propounding your views. I wouldn't want unpopular views (self-)censored on BLML. The problem, of course, is that whenever the "de Wael school" pops up, lots of people feel honour bound to argue against it, in case the young and impressionable are tempted into the ways of heresy. And the same old arguments get trotted out on both sides, which is tedious and timewasting for those who feel they have to participate. You know how some newsgroups have FAQs that are automatically posted now and then? Maybe we should have a FAA (Frequently Argued Arguments). Once every few months, an automatically generated message propounding the de Wael school would be posted, and then in the following week, ten automatic messages a day would be posted explaining how ridiculous it is. Then long-time subscribers could just ignore these messages, secure in the knowledge that the young and impressionable would be getting a balanced view. :) --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 9 23:28:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 23:28:54 +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 XAA04402 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 23:28:46 +1000 Received: from p05s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.6] helo=pacific) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10VbKl-0006qH-00; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:28:35 +0100 Message-ID: <006801be828c$c1a682a0$1a8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:26:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott >OK, at last we now have some sort of official interpretation >: > >L75C is more important than L75D2. > >I shall comply. > >I am certain that this is already in Grattan's notebook and >that the WBFLC will endorse this (or the contrary) point of >view. > ++++ I think I should record that, from inside the WBFLC, I have a challenge to Herman's use of the words "official interpretation". It has been put to me that the only official interpretation is that settled upon and recorded by the committee acting as a committee, and that the recorded committee decision should be available where any committee view is considered to be "official". The committee member in question notes ton's words as expressing a personal point of view - and, to be fair to ton, he did not suggest otherwise. As for my notebook, I am digging around on this one to see if there happens to be a relevant statement that has not been superseded. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 10 01:38:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 01:38:19 +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 BAA06989 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 01:38:10 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA09859 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:34:04 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904091534.KAA09859@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Law 25B - ACBL Interpretation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:34:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Greetings, > > This is obviously an undesirable situation. How are ordinary folks > supposed to follow regulations that aren't published anywhere? > > Making them available to TDs, even if you include the local ones, is > not sufficient. > > Publish everything on the ACBL webpage (as a single point of reference). > Consideration should also be given to putting them where folks will > actually read them, in the Bulletin. > > Publishing regulations has several advantages: > > People are more likely to follow them. > Rulings are more likely to be consistent between the local > and national levels. > Bad regulations are likely to be seen as such and discarded. > Fewer bad feelings are likely to result. > > Bruce > I think there are some LC decisions which are technical enough that the average player need not be informed of them. But this is not true of many decisions, which should indeed be publicized. To your list of benefits of doing so I would add another--such an action might actually increase the awareness of the laws in general, and produce some productive discussion. -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 10 02:09:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 02:09:40 +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 CAA07223 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 02:09:28 +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 SAA01193; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 18:08:54 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <370E2647.B79D817C@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 19:09:43 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rickard, Jeremy" CC: BLML Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hercules Poireau against Sherlock Holmes ???? Have fun all Dany Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > {rubbed of by Dr. Watson....) > > > You know how some newsgroups have FAQs that are automatically posted > now and then? > > Maybe we should have a FAA (Frequently Argued Arguments). Once every few > months, an automatically generated message propounding the de Wael > school would be posted, and then in the following week, ten automatic > messages a day would be posted explaining how ridiculous it is. Then > long-time subscribers could just ignore these messages, secure in the > knowledge that the young and impressionable would be getting a balanced > view. :) > > --------------------------------- > Jeremy Rickard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 10 05:21:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 05:21:16 +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 FAA07716 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 05:21:09 +1000 Received: from modem21.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.21] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Vgpq-0002XG-00; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:21:03 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:45:16 +0100 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 ................................................................ "Do not think what you want to think until you know what you ought to know" - Crow. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---------- > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) > Date: 08 April 1999 21:39 > > Sounds like a good round-up of this thread to me, so I hope we can end > it (please, please Herman) right here (at least for this time :-)). > ++++ Perhaps that should be written ((-: at least for this time :-)) ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 10 08:11:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:11:06 +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 IAA08304 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:10:57 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10VjUA-0005FL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 00:10:50 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990410000828.00aafe40@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 00:08:28 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: minutes from lille/wbf regulations In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A simple question. Are the minutes from lille official and applicable for all NA's? My NA hasnt published them, neither in the oficial 'BRIDGE', nor in the 'WEKO-wijzer', a magazine for TD's. So the question is, can I as TD apply the minutes in holland or not? regards, anton At 23:38 08-04-99 -0400, you wrote: >Greetings, > >This is obviously an undesirable situation. How are ordinary folks >supposed to follow regulations that aren't published anywhere? > >Making them available to TDs, even if you include the local ones, is >not sufficient. > >Publish everything on the ACBL webpage (as a single point of reference). >Consideration should also be given to putting them where folks will >actually read them, in the Bulletin. > >Publishing regulations has several advantages: > > People are more likely to follow them. > Rulings are more likely to be consistent between the local > and national levels. > Bad regulations are likely to be seen as such and discarded. > Fewer bad feelings are likely to result. > >Bruce > >On Sat, 3 Apr 1999, Barry Wolk wrote: > >> Linda Trent wrote: >> >> > >Where is that written? Interpretive guidelines for implementing the >> > >Laws are supposed to be provided by the LC, not by word-of-mouth >> > >agreements among AC members. The correct procedure is this: SOs go >> > >to the LC when an interpretive guideline is needed, the LC issues a >> > >guideline, the guideline is published. A good example is the >> > >clarification of the words "logical alternative" that was provided >> > >by the LC. This procedure is not always being followed by the ACBL. >> > >> > At the Vancouver Laws Commission meeting the Orlando Laws Commission >> > meeting minutes were approved which contains the following item: >> >> [snip] >> >> > I don't know how ACBL members get information from Laws Commission meeting >> > minutes. I guess Gary Blaiss might be the place to start as he attends all >> > the meetings. >> > >> > Linda >> >> All ACBL TDs receive mailing monthly from Memphis. Information about >> recent ACBL LC decisiobs are included in these mailings. >> >> The Tech files are updated three times a year. TDs at the NABC get disk >> copies of these updates, which eventually filter down through the TD >> ranks. And revisions of the computer program ACBLScore usually include the >> latest such update. >> >> Check the tech file titled R-LWSCMS (or something like that) for decisions >> by the ACBL LC. >> -- >> Barry Wolk >> Winnipeg Manitoba Canada >> > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 10 08:22:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:22:14 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08331 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:22:05 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10Vjet-0004N4-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 22:21:56 +0000 Message-ID: <7RRzTCC6xnD3Ewqs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 23:17:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Vancouver Appeals Case 5: Played Card References: <3VewitCI2DA3EwTw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3VewitCI2DA3EwTw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bridge-laws mailing list rec.games.bridge The Bridge World The Bridge Bulletin cc Grattan Endicott David Burn Hans-Olof Hallen Appeals Case 5 Subject: Played Card Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 March 99 Declarer is playing in 6C at teams. She reaches a position where she has 12 tricks by drawing trumps. The official report then continues: '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).' L45C4B says: A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law 47E). Was the call for a spade inadvertent? The Director ruled so: the Appeals Committee agreed, though with dissenting opinions. I believe that it is a matter of judgement whether it was, and see no reason to disagree with the decision made. Let us assume it was inadvertent. The official report then continues: 'The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws Commission interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for thought" means "change of mind."' This is a very strange statement indeed, and I wonder what was in the mind of the Screening Director when he said it [assuming it has been accurately reported]. The word "inadvertent" is interpreted to exclude a change of mind: if a player wishes the director to allow her to play a club when she has asked for a spade then either the call for a spade was "inadvertent", ie she meant a club all the time, or she has changed he mind and originally meant a spade but now wishes to play a club. The wording of L45C2B does not permit a card to be changed because of a change of mind so no change would be allowed in the latter case. I believe that this statement as reported is wrong, though it may not have affected the ruling. The official report then continues: '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. This is the normal interpretation of "without pause for thought" as it appears in this Law and the more common Law 25A concerning inadvertent calls. A player who realises she has called for the wrong card or made the wrong call may change it if inadvertent so long as there is no pause "for thought" from the realisation that it was wrong. Generally, Directors and appeals Committees interpret this generously. The official report then continues: '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.' This is the second statement in the report that concerns what the Screening Director says, and it is not at all clear that it is correct. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that it is not clear whether it is relevant. Rulings may be sought and given until the end of the Correction Period per L92B, but in some cases they will not given because of other considerations. It is suggested that declarer made an inadvertent designation, and made this clear by saying "Oh shit": if so then she drew attention to it under L9A2A. Why did no-one summon the Director, as required by L9B1A? Presumably because the other three players failed to realise that she was drawing attention to an irregularity, but what of declarer herself? She continued to play in defiance of L9B2. Possibly she did not think that there was an irregularity. I am doubtful as to whether any adjustment is due to declarer once attention is drawn but no Director summoned. However, the main point of the hand is that L45C4B allows a player to "change an inadvertent designation if she does so without pause for thought". The normal interpretation is that an attempt to change is good enough. Is that what happened here? No! If declarer had said "Oh shit! I did not mean to play that card: let's get the Director" then she would be allowed to change it. What she actually did was to indicate she had made a mistake but she made no effort to change it. Thus no change is allowed under L45C4B. Dummy called the Director at the end of the hand. While he has a perfect right to do so, there is no longer any question of a change being made without pause for thought: that time has passed. Declarer made no attempt to change the card without pause for thought so it may not be changed. It would be better if L45C4B contained a time limit as L25A does: to be analogous, no change would be permitted after partner has played a card, or the player herself has played to the next trick, or made or acquiesced in a claim. However, the actual wording of the Law precludes attempting to change the card some time later: the lapse of time is significant, and the words "without pause for thought" sufficient to make sure that no adjustment may be made at the end of the hand. It is my considered opinion that the Appeals Committee in Vancouver was mis-directed on the Law, and that no change under L45C4B may be made at a later stage. -- David Stevenson laws@blakjak.demon.co.uk Chief Tournament Director, Liverpool, England, UK Welsh Bridge Union Fax: +44 870 055 7697 Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 10 11:21:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:21:52 +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 LAA08790 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:21:46 +1000 Received: from MarvinL (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA02291 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 18:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001001be82f0$6f6b0880$6c2fd2cc@French.san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990410000828.00aafe40@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Subject: Re: minutes from lille/wbf regulations Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 18:14:19 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > A simple question. > Are the minutes from lille official and applicable for all NA's? The WBF By-Laws state clearly that the WBFLC is responsible for interpreting the Laws. Therefore the answer is yes. However, various NA's will consider that they do not have to adhere to the By-Laws. These NA's should secede from the WBF. The implementation of the Lille interpretations may vary from place to place, that's understandable, but any implementation must not be contrary to the WBFLC's interpretations. The sole job of the other LCs in this matter is to give guidelines for implementation within their jurisdictions. > My NA hasnt published them, neither in the oficial 'BRIDGE', nor in the > 'WEKO-wijzer', a magazine for TD's. Nor has the ACBL LC. I have pestered numerous persons to get the minutes of the ACBL LC meeting in Orlando (where the Lille minutes were discussed) published, with no success so far. When I asked Chip Martel (co-chair of the LC) about this in Vancouver, he assured me that publication was in the works. I suspect that there are some closed-door discussions going on. The ACBL LC is probably rejecting some of the Lille interpretations, and needs to gather suitable arguments for doing so before publishing the Orlando minutes. > So the question is, can I as TD apply the minutes in holland or not? I believe the answer is yes, but only after your NA has told you *how* to apply them. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 10 15:15:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:15:21 +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 PAA09087 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:15:11 +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 10Vq6h-00061w-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 05:15:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 06:10:50 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Jeremy Rickard writes snip > >The problem, of course, is that whenever the "de Wael school" pops >up, lots of people feel honour bound to argue against it, snip now that we know Herman has a school we *demand* full explanations of 1) Hermanberg 2) Hermansohl 3) Walloon splinters 4) HermanCount (I think that's what it was) They all come from the easter tournament and were carefully analysed till 4 am by the partying Belgians over serious quantities of Scottish. Herman, confess (or I'll post a libellous version) -- 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 Apr 10 22:05:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 22:05:26 +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 WAA09703 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 22:05:19 +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 10VwVc-0004TQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:05:12 +0000 Message-ID: <6FFzWPAqTzD3Ewrw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:24:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) 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: >They all come from the easter tournament and were carefully analysed >till 4 am by the partying Belgians over serious quantities of Scottish. ^^^^^^^^ John! >Herman, confess (or I'll post a libellous version) I was called to the table by Herman who complained that he had been insulted by Tony Priday. While Tony admitted it I did not accept that because Tony is one of the real gentleman of the game. I was also called by Greet, another of the party because there was too much noise from the next table - Herman, of course. In between all this I fined two Norwegians for not being at the table after warnings, and dealt with Maxine, John's wife, who had a disagreement with a good-looking lady about what she had said. Rarely have I been more confident that a player was correct: I was standing next to Maxine when she said "300"! The lady eventually said to me "I am not English": she rather spoilt the effect by saying it in perfect English, which is more than the Londoners could manage. I enjoyed the Easter Festival! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's birthday was on 5th April ICQ 20039682 Emails to bluejak on OKB Cat pictures: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/qu_npoo.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 11 03:15:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:15:44 +1000 Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12794 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:15:32 +1000 From: SuzanTrull@aol.com Received: from SuzanTrull@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.9) id pYRNa20339 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:14:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1d5cd653.2440e0fb@aol.com> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:14:35 EDT Subject: Not Final Yet To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Reply-To: SuzanTrull@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I still have time to make a final ruling from a jackpot game last night. I would appreciate some assistance in making a final decision. Sitting East, you hold: 987 A8 QT97543 4 You deal with both vul. The auction: E S W N P P 1S 2C 3C 4H 4S 5H P P DBL P ?? The double was very slow. You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are trying to learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even sure it applies here). The player was aware that this auction strongly implied a double fit for NS. The player also expressed the fact that he had overbid his hand and was fearful that 5H could easily make. Do you feel that there was UI which demonstrably suggested one action over another? Do you feel that pass is a LA for a player at this level? Obviously, bidding 5S was right (5H goes down only 2 and 5S makes). This mailing list is so helpful for club directors. Thanks for your assistance... Suzanne Trull From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 11 03:44:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:44:16 +1000 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12865 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:44:08 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.9) id pFEVa27567; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:43:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:43:20 EDT Subject: Re: Not Final Yet To: SuzanTrull@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10 Reply-To: RCraigH@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/10/99 1:17:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, SuzanTrull@aol.com writes: > Sitting East, you hold: > > 987 > A8 > QT97543 > 4 > > You deal with both vul. The auction: > > E S W N > P P 1S 2C > 3C 4H 4S 5H > P P DBL P > ?? > > The double was very slow. > > You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are trying to > > learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even sure it applies > here). The player was aware that this auction strongly implied a double fit > > for NS. The player also expressed the fact that he had overbid his hand and > > was fearful that 5H could easily make. > > Do you feel that there was UI which demonstrably suggested one action over > another? Do you feel that pass is a LA for a player at this level? > Obviously, bidding 5S was right (5H goes down only 2 and 5S makes). > > This mailing list is so helpful for club directors. > > Thanks for your assistance... > > Suzanne Trull > If 5S were clear because of the double fit, east would not have passed 5H. The slow double bars east. Pass is clearly a logical alternative -- having passed this contract already....... Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 11 04:28:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 04:28:52 +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 EAA12969 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 04:28:45 +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 OAA16683 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:28:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904101828.OAA05998@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <1d5cd653.2440e0fb@aol.com> (SuzanTrull@aol.com) Subject: Re: Not Final Yet Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk SuzanTrull writes: > I still have time to make a final ruling from a jackpot game last night. I > would appreciate some assistance in making a final decision. > Sitting East, you hold: > 987 > A8 > QT97543 > 4 > You deal with both vul. The auction: > E S W N > P P 1S 2C > 3C 4H 4S 5H > P P DBL P > ?? > The double was very slow. > You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are trying to > learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even sure it applies > here). The player was aware that this auction strongly implied a double fit > for NS. The player also expressed the fact that he had overbid his hand and > was fearful that 5H could easily make. An important principle applies here. If you have passed a decision to partner, you must respect partner's decision. For purposes of logical alternatives, your peers are now those players at your level who made the same judgment you did last turn. If East expected 5H to make, he could have bid 5S directly over 5H, which would be a good sacrifice if 5H goes down. He chose not to sacrifice, and West's penalty double should make it less likely that 5H will make, and not make it more likely that 5S will make, so East should not bid 5S now. Only the UI suggests that West was not confident about the double and that 5H might still make (if West considered a pass) or that 5S might still make (if West considered bidding it). Thus I would not allow the 5S bid here. If North had been the one to bid 5H, East could have argued that passing the double was not a logical alternative because it was very likely, given his hand, that either 5H or 5S would make. (I might not have accepted that argument, but it would have been a valid point.) (Even if there is a forcing-pass understanding, the ruling should be the same. When you make a forcing pass, you must accept partner's decision unless you are planning to pass-and-pull as a slam invitation.) -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 11 07:53:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 07:53:02 +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 HAA13434 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 07:52:51 +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 NAA21104 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:52:38 -0800 Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:49:23 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: blml@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A bad dream Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ReSent-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:52:27 -0800 (AKDT) ReSent-From: Gordon Bower ReSent-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ReSent-Subject: A bad dream ReSent-Message-ID: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is what I woke up to this morning. Mostly this is just a tale from a warped mind, presented here for your amusement. But perhaps some of you will find some food for thought in it too. Enjoy. --- I am playing in a club game. Towards the end of the evening, I pick up my cards for the second board of a round and I hold as South S: Qxx H: KQ D: KJxxx C: Jxx. There is some banter at the table as to how the bidding should have gone on the previous deal. Partner turns to my LHO and says something like "...and after my partner bids 2H, you will...?" LHO: "Pass." Pard: "3NT." RHO: "Pass." LHO: "Pass." Pard: "Pass." As everybody else is about to write down the final contract at 3NT by North, I say "hey, wait a minute... I am the dealer and I haven't opened yet!" We don't have a non-playing director at the club tonight. LHO and I are the two certified directors in the room. In the dream, what happened was that LHO made the ruling since I had "called" the director. He told me to make my opening bid (1D, though some might have chosen to pass, I suppose), repeated his pass, made partner repeat his 3NT, made RHO repeat his pass. Now it's my call. Instinct says pass. A 3NT opening in our system would show a solid major, so I know that's not what happened by looking at my own hand. Do I have an obligation to try six, or to pass when I think six might be there (if pard has 20 points or something)? The strain of the ethical dilemma was enough to cause me to wake up. On reflection I decided that LHO had give the wrong ruling. Had I been called to the table, I think I would say this: LHO's pass was out of turn. North condoned it and opened 3NT. RHO passes in rotation. LHO passes out of rotation again. North condones it again by passing. Auction is not over because I've been deprived of a chance to call by the irregularity. I choose a call over 3NT. This doesn't make my call any easier. As I said, 3NT opening with this partner was conventional. (Kantar 3NT, solid undisclosed major suit, at most one king and one queen outside.) I can see from my own hand that this isn't what partner had, but there may be some UI issues to deal with still. I think I would pass. But the truth is, I am really glad this happened in a dream, not at the table. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 11 08:04:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 08:04:16 +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 IAA13460 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 08:04:11 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivei0m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.22]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA27176 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990410180237.006e84b8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:02:37 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Not Final Yet In-Reply-To: <1d5cd653.2440e0fb@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:14 PM 4/10/99 EDT, Suzanne wrote: >I still have time to make a final ruling from a jackpot game last night. I >would appreciate some assistance in making a final decision. > >Sitting East, you hold: > >987 >A8 >QT97543 >4 > >You deal with both vul. The auction: > > E S W N > P P 1S 2C > 3C 4H 4S 5H > P P DBL P > ?? > >The double was very slow. > >You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are trying to >learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even sure it applies >here). The player was aware that this auction strongly implied a double fit >for NS. The player also expressed the fact that he had overbid his hand and >was fearful that 5H could easily make. > >Do you feel that there was UI which demonstrably suggested one action over >another? Do you feel that pass is a LA for a player at this level? >Obviously, bidding 5S was right (5H goes down only 2 and 5S makes). > Yes, there was UI (the slow double) which demonstrably suggested removing the double. What are the conceivable options in this situation? Pass could certainly be right, especially since you hold one certain defensive trick and at least the possibility of a second (club ruff). Yes, 3C was a gross overbid, and might make me wish to remove the double if I had made such a blunder myself. But partner's hesitation has taken that option away from me. It clearly suggests doubt about the wisdom of defending, and as such makes 5S a more attractive option. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 11 10:52:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:52:58 +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 KAA13760 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 10:52:49 +1000 Received: from pe3s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.228] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10W8UN-0002Th-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 01:52:43 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Not Final Yet Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 01:52:49 +0100 Message-ID: <01be83b5$9ee6d600$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: SuzanTrull@aol.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, April 10, 1999 6:37 PM Subject: Not Final Yet >I still have time to make a final ruling from a jackpot game last night. I >would appreciate some assistance in making a final decision. > >Sitting East, you hold: > >987 >A8 >QT97543 >4 > >You deal with both vul. The auction: > > E S W N > P P 1S 2C > 3C 4H 4S 5H > P P DBL P > ?? > >The double was very slow. There is little that a novice hates more than being accused of a long hesitation. They feel as though they are being accused of doing something illegal. I usually try to pour oil on troubled waters by saying, "It doesn't matter how long the hesitation was, but tell me, did you have something to ponder about?" > >You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are trying to >learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even sure it applies >here). The player was aware that this auction strongly implied a double fit >for NS. The player also expressed the fact that he had overbid his hand and >was fearful that 5H could easily make. > >Do you feel that there was UI which demonstrably suggested one action over >another? Yes. I do think so. When a player makes a hesitant double it is usual that double was not the only bid available to him. He had a decision to make. We would be ill advised to consider that this decision had nothing to do with the auction so far, or the cards in his hand, therefore the auction and/or the cards in his hand presented a problem. He made a decision. His partner however good or weak a bridge player may guess that this difficult decision was made more so by the 3C bid that she made. She has shown a hand which may be expected to be playable in 3NT opposite a minimum hand with 4 Spades, and this is obviously not what she has got. (You didn't say they were playing 5 cards majors). Now that there is UI the player in receipt of this information must make every effort to _avoid_ taking advantage of it. If she had it in her mind that if he made a confidant double, she would have to pull it, the goalposts have now changed. Do you feel that pass is a LA for a player at this level? Certainly. Her partner has opened the bidding and she has possibly two tricks in defence (the DK is probably wrong, and will be wrong if her side is playing the contract as well!) >Obviously, bidding 5S was right (5H goes down only 2 and 5S makes). Yes. If this player knew more about the LTC she might have bid it when she had the chance. By doing so she would have been saying "I cannot afford for you to double, so I'm not giving you the chance." You did not give us all the hands, and this would have been useful when calculating the most favourable result likely/most unfavourable result probable scenario. If as you say 5H* is always down 2, I rule N/S -500: E/W +500. Anne. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 11 14:09:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:09:37 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14226 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 14:09:28 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10WBYf-0005EE-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 04:09:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 05:07:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Not Final Yet In-Reply-To: <1d5cd653.2440e0fb@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <1d5cd653.2440e0fb@aol.com>, SuzanTrull@aol.com writes >I still have time to make a final ruling from a jackpot game last night. I >would appreciate some assistance in making a final decision. > >Sitting East, you hold: > >987 >A8 >QT97543 >4 > >You deal with both vul. The auction: > > E S W N > P P 1S 2C > 3C 4H 4S 5H > P P DBL P > ?? > >The double was very slow. > >You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are trying to >learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even sure it applies >here). The player was aware that this auction strongly implied a double fit >for NS. The player also expressed the fact that he had overbid his hand and >was fearful that 5H could easily make. > >Do you feel that there was UI which demonstrably suggested one action over >another? Do you feel that pass is a LA for a player at this level? >Obviously, bidding 5S was right (5H goes down only 2 and 5S makes). > >This mailing list is so helpful for club directors. > A UK view. TNT on the hand is about 20 and so it is quite possible both contracts are down 1. This makes Pass an LA. The slow double shows doubt about that action and may suggest that pard was thinking of "saving or making". Hence the bid of 5S becomes an LA which cannot be used. I'm clear that in the UK an EBU TD would rule 5Hx - 2 Cheers John >Thanks for your assistance... > >Suzanne Trull -- 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 Apr 11 20:07:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:07:28 +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 UAA14944 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:07:18 +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 MAA00691; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:07:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3710747B.91B073B3@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:07:55 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SuzanTrull@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Not Final Yet References: <1d5cd653.2440e0fb@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well Very difficult for me to think about this case , if East doesn't know what forcing pass is . In any case , I think East has no reason to bid after West's Dbl. - slow or fast or blue or green. Best wishes and succesful decision Dany SuzanTrull@aol.com wrote: > > I still have time to make a final ruling from a jackpot game last night. I > would appreciate some assistance in making a final decision. > > Sitting East, you hold: > > 987 > A8 > QT97543 > 4 > > You deal with both vul. The auction: > > E S W N > P P 1S 2C > 3C 4H 4S 5H > P P DBL P > ?? > > The double was very slow. > > You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are trying to > learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even sure it applies > here). The player was aware that this auction strongly implied a double fit > for NS. The player also expressed the fact that he had overbid his hand and > was fearful that 5H could easily make. > > Do you feel that there was UI which demonstrably suggested one action over > another? Do you feel that pass is a LA for a player at this level? > Obviously, bidding 5S was right (5H goes down only 2 and 5S makes). > > This mailing list is so helpful for club directors. > > Thanks for your assistance... > > Suzanne Trull From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 11 21:17:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:17:20 +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 VAA15064 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:17:13 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-181.uunet.be [194.7.14.181]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10349 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:17:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37106C9A.CD606718@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:34:18 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article , Jeremy > Rickard writes > > snip > > > >The problem, of course, is that whenever the "de Wael school" pops > >up, lots of people feel honour bound to argue against it, > > snip > > now that we know Herman has a school we *demand* full explanations of > > 1) Hermanberg 2He (Muiderberg, 5He,4+Min,6-11) - 2Sp - 2NT (asking for minor) - 3Sp Double : intended to show 5Diamonds - normal answer would have been 3Sp, but interpreted as penalty. Advanced Hermanberg = I returned in ruff'n'sluff to allow the contract to make. > 2) Hermansohl 1NT - 3Di intended as transfer (stupid of me) - Dble - pass pass - 3He : just made, for a top, and some bewildered opponents who did not understand that the director could not rectify anything. > 3) Walloon splinters 1Di - 2Sp (weak) - 4He intended as splinter, but passed out. my -250 for five down was not a bottom, as at another table the other pair of Belgians were also making 8 tricks in a heart contract : 2HeX ! > 4) HermanCount (I think that's what it was) On King lead, I played 7 from J752 to show even count. Three tricks later, the six and four made two tricks ! > > They all come from the easter tournament and were carefully analysed > till 4 am by the partying Belgians over serious quantities of Scottish. > > Herman, confess (or I'll post a libellous version) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 12 09:39:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA19199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:39:42 +1000 Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA19194 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:39:34 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.9) id pEOSa23592 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <97d71a25.24428c84@aol.com> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:38:44 EDT Subject: Re: Not Final Yet To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Reply-To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/10/99 11:31:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu writes: > SuzanTrull writes: > > > I still have time to make a final ruling from a jackpot game last night. > I > > would appreciate some assistance in making a final decision. > > > Sitting East, you hold: > > > 987 > > A8 > > QT97543 > > 4 > > > You deal with both vul. The auction: > > > E S W N > > P P 1S 2C > > 3C 4H 4S 5H > > P P DBL P > > ?? > > > The double was very slow. > > > You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are trying > to > > learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even sure it > applies > > here). The player was aware that this auction strongly implied a double > fit > > for NS. The player also expressed the fact that he had overbid his hand > and > > was fearful that 5H could easily make. David Grabiner writes: > An important principle applies here. If you have passed a decision to > partner, you must respect partner's decision. For purposes of logical > alternatives, your peers are now those players at your level who made > the same judgment you did last turn. > > If East expected 5H to make, he could have bid 5S directly over 5H, > which would be a good sacrifice if 5H goes down. He chose not to > sacrifice, and West's penalty double should make it less likely that 5H > will make, and not make it more likely that 5S will make, so East should > not bid 5S now. Only the UI suggests that West was not confident about > the double and that 5H might still make (if West considered a pass) or > that 5S might still make (if West considered bidding it). I believe David is imposing a level of expertise on these players that Suzanne attempted to suggest did not exist. It sounds like this player passed 5H with no consideration whatsoever for the fact that this was not going to end the auction. There was a time when we may all have been guilty of one dimensional thinking like that. > Thus I would not allow the 5S bid here. If North had been the one to > bid 5H, East could have argued that passing the double was not a logical > alternative because it was very likely, given his hand, that either 5H > or 5S would make. (I might not have accepted that argument, but it > would have been a valid point.) > > (Even if there is a forcing-pass understanding, the ruling should be the > same. When you make a forcing pass, you must accept partner's decision > unless you are planning to pass-and-pull as a slam invitation.) I totally agree with your last statement, David. It is clear that most responding to this query do not want to allow the 5S call. I am only questioning whether we are allowing our expectations of assumed player knowledge to color our reasoning. I would certainly laugh at any member of this list who proposed they should now be able to bid 5S. But I'm not so sure it is laughable given the very basic level of bridge these players operated on. I still remember that many years ago I would often bd once to often in an auction because of a fear of what the opponents might be able to make. I'm taking a literal interpretation from what Suzanne presented us with. I intend to question some players at the club tomorrow who are near this level of bridge. I will be anxious to hear their responses. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 12 17:48:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:48:01 +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 RAA20056 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:47:49 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA20917 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:47:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 08:46 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Not Final Yet 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: <1d5cd653.2440e0fb@aol.com> SuzanTrull@aol.com wrote: > > I still have time to make a final ruling from a jackpot game last > night. I would appreciate some assistance in making a final decision. > > Sitting East, you hold: > > 987 > A8 > QT97543 > 4 > > You deal with both vul. The auction: > > E S W N > P P 1S 2C > 3C 4H 4S 5H > P P DBL P > ?? > > The double was very slow. > > You and your partner have about 100 masterpoints (novices) but are > trying to learn. You know nothing about a forcing pass (I'm not even > sure it applies here). The player was aware that this auction strongly > implied a double fit for NS. The player also expressed the fact that > he had overbid his hand and was fearful that 5H could easily make. > > Do you feel that there was UI which demonstrably suggested one action > over another? Do you feel that pass is a LA for a player at this > level? Obviously, bidding 5S was right (5H goes down only 2 and 5S > makes). > > This mailing list is so helpful for club directors. > > Thanks for your assistance... > > Suzanne Trull It is often difficult to get inside the mind of a novice when it comes to LAs/demonstrably suggested. If the player was of a higher standard you could not convince me that a slam try of 5S was suggested by a slow double. So I think we have to accept that the player, while potentially keen, is also somewhat clueless. The actual player has already made 3 bids which many here will disagree with so getting into their shoes is even harder. It is my experience that novices hate defending doubled contracts, particularly if they believe they have overbid their hand. In this sort of situation they are almost incapable of interpreting tempo breaks by partner. I could easily be persuaded that East passed 5S because he was too scared to bid again and would never have considered passing an in tempo double. It also seems likely that East was unaware of his ethical obligations - I would have liked to hear answers to questions such as "Why do you think your partner was slow to double 5H?". Pass is definitely an LA but players must be of a certain basic calibre before tempo breaks suggest anything to them. I don't know enough about East to determine whether he was of that calibre. NB: I only wrote this because adjusting seemed obviously right when I first looked at the problem (and I couldn't bear the thought of BLML achieving unanimity on something:-)) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 12 21:42:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:42:36 +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 VAA20607 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 21:42:25 +1000 Received: from pb5s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.182] helo=pacific) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10Wf6X-0003J5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:42:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01be84d9$62973940$b6a593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: A matter of opinion. Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 12:30:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:13:09 +1000 Received: from p88s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.137] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10WhSK-0004MG-00; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:12:57 +0100 Message-ID: <003501be84ee$6ee5f640$898d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Anton Witzen" Subject: Re: minutes from lille/wbf regulations Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:05:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 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: 09 April 1999 23:44 Subject: minutes from lille/wbf regulations >So the question is, can I as TD apply the minutes in holland or not? ++++ You must ask your NCBO for its instructions. The WBF transmits its minutes and interpretations through the establishment chain and what happens in the territory of an NCBO is left to that NCBO to order. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 03:27:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:27:44 +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 DAA23994 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:27:35 +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 10WkUU-000NcB-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:27:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:03:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kxxxx W S N E x xxx 1NT QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT Jx Qxx AP AKQxx J10xx Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx AK10xxxx x Matchpoints Kxx Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. This is a bottom! Unlucky! Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 03:40:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:40:24 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA24053 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:40:18 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10Wkgt-000Nqs-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:40:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:03:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kxxxx W S N E x xxx 1NT QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT Jx Qxx AP AKQxx J10xx Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx AK10xxxx x Matchpoints Kxx Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. This is a bottom! Unlucky! Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 04:19:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:19:49 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24251 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:19:42 +1000 Received: from default ([12.75.41.107]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990412181903.EBGU24995@default> for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 18:19:03 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:18:41 -0500 Message-ID: <01be8510$e47b2840$35284b0c@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 This director does not deem the non-offending side insufficiently compensated by Law 64 for the damaged caused. He will not assign an adjusted score. -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson Subject: Revoke -hand snipped [garbled but readable]- > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with >a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few >diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, >establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, >which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the >end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes >his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 04:35:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:35:54 +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 EAA24296 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:35:47 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa01411; 12 Apr 99 11:35 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:03:54 PDT." Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:35:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904121135.aa01411@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT > QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT > Jx Qxx AP > AKQxx J10xx > Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with > a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few > diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, > establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, > which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the > end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes > his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? Well, first we have to apply L29 through L31 repeatedly, unless you've mistyped the compass directions atop the bidding diagram . . . :) Anyway, here are my feelings about this situation: I can think of a couple broad classes of situations where L64C should apply. One is where the revoke interferes with declarer's normal line, such as when declarer wants to run dummy's suit with no side entry, and a defender's revoke creates a stopper. Another is when the misinformation from a revoke causes the NO to embark on a different line of play that turns out to lose more tricks than the revoke penalty gives back. (Perhaps there are other situations as well.) Neither one applies here, though. The only thing that affected declarer's play was his knowledge that he had an extra trick coming. I think the situation is analogous to one in which there's no irregularity. Declarer plays 3NT and has 8 top tricks. On a normal passive lead, declarer must take a finesse for the contract; he will make 10 tricks if the finesse wins and 8 if it loses. But opening leader decides to make an unusual lead that gives declarer a trick. Declarer now has to decide whether to play safe and take 9 top tricks, or take the finesse (which would lead to down 1 if it loses). Some declarers in this situation might guess to take the nine top tricks, hoping to gain a top from the unusual lead; but this will result in a bad score if the finesse wins and the rest of the field is taking 10 tricks. Oh, well . . . that's part of the game. If you misguess in situations like this, you get a bad score. And I think that's what the declarer did here---he misguessed. His extra trick was from a revoke penalty instead of from an agressive opening lead, but otherwise it's the exact same situation, and I see no reason why protecting the declarer from his misguess is necessary to preserve "equity". So I rule declarer gets nine tricks. In fact, I'd suspect declarer of trying a double shot (he gets a top if the spade hook is off, and he tries to get a favorable ruling if the spade hook is on). This wouldn't affect my ruling, except possibly to assess a PEBL (penalty for excessive bridge lawyering) if declarer is obnoxious enough. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 04:49:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:49:57 +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 EAA24340 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:49:46 +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 OAA09578 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:49:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904121849.OAA04388@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:03:54 +0100) Subject: Re: Revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT > QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT > Jx Qxx AP > AKQxx J10xx > Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with > a successful spade finesse. > [South revokes on diamonds, and] East-West will get one trick > transferred to them at the end of the hand. Declarer does not take > the spade finesse, but takes his eight tricks, and one is transferred, > giving him nine tricks. > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? Declarer's choice of play was not a direct consequence of the infraction. By ignoring the revoke, he could have beaten all other declarers in 3NT by one trick regardless of the spade position. Thus, no adjustment. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 04:58:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:58:19 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24365 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:58:12 +1000 Received: from [130.15.119.197] (DU197.N119.QueensU.CA [130.15.119.197]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA23281 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:58:01 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would appreciate comments on the following situation, which arose during the weekend in the Zone Final of the Canadian National Teams Championship. (In spite of the various actions taken on this deal, you should assume a reasonable standard around the table.) East deals, none vul. J10 KQ6542 104 1096 Q8532 A74 A3 109 73 Q98652 QJ73 K5 K96 J87 AKJ A842 South opened 1N (15-17), and North transferred with 2D, doubled by East. South accepted the transfer, and West bid 2S. North competed with 3H, and South bid game. The diamond lead ran to the J, and West won the first round of hearts and switched to the club 3, to the K and A. South drew the remaining trumps, then cashed the diamonds, discarding a club, and led a club in this position: J10 KQ65 - 10 Q853 A74 - - - Q98 QJ7 5 K96 J - 842 After a prolonged hesitation, West won the club Q and continued with the 7. South ruffed in dummy, led a spade, and misguessed, running it to the Q for down 1. Declarer now requested a ruling, saying that the long hesitation before West won the club queen had convinced him that East must have the club J. West said that when the club was led to trick 7, his first conclusion was that he must win the club Q (since winning with the J would mark him with the Q), and the rest of the time was spent considering what he should do after winning the Q, and that he had every right to this time for consideration. Further, West pointed out that in his defensive methods, "2nd and 4th" leads were used, so that from a holding of Q73, his first club lead would have been the 7, not the 3; thus South should have got the position right in any case. South countered that at the point of decision, he knew that either West's play of the Q or West's original club lead was a falsecard, and he assumed it was the lead because of the long hesitation. After a prompt win of the Q, he would certainly have let the continuation of the 7 run to his 8, because of the defenders' lead agreements. How would you rule? _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 05:00:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:00:07 +1000 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 FAA24385 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:00:00 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10Wlvv-0003xO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:59:47 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990412205718.00aca370@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:57:18 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:03 12-04-99 +0100, you wrote: > > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT >QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT >Jx Qxx AP >AKQxx J10xx >Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with >a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few >diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, >establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, >which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the >end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes >his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? > I dont see on what grounds. He knows that without the revoke, if finesse goes wrong, he loses a lot of H tricks, but due to the revoke now one less than all the others. Thus why didnt he take it? I would let the result stand, but perhaps i missed an important fact? regards, anton >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 05:22:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:22:07 +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 FAA24437 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:22:00 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA01830 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:21:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 20:20 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Revoke 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: > > > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT > QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT > Jx Qxx AP > AKQxx J10xx > Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with > a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few > diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, > establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, > which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the > end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes > his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? And he is entitled to one - just as any player is entitled to a ruling when he requests one. Indeed at IMPS I think he would be entitled to a *favourable* ruling since the revoke induced him into an otherwise unavailable safety play (although this would probably be under 72b1 rather than directly under L64C). Making the same safety play at matchpoints is, to say the least, swinging and, IMO, a mistake. In this case I think declarer was damaged by his own poor analysis/play rather than by the revoke itself so I would rule result stands. Interesting position. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 06:21:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:21:15 +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 GAA24610 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:21:09 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivei69.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.201]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21758 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990412161855.006e3798@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:18:55 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:03 PM 4/12/99 +0100, DWS wrote: > > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT >QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT >Jx Qxx AP >AKQxx J10xx >Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with >a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few >diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, >establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, >which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the >end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes >his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? Result stands. Declarer made a choice in the play; that choice turned out badly. IMO, the L64C provision is to apply when the prescribed penalty is insufficiently compensatory for the result of the infraction, i.e., where the revoke per se netted the defense more than the one (or two) tricks awarded as penalty. For example, a revoke which has the effect of shutting declarer off from good tricks in the dummy, or a revoke which establishes a chance for a defensive cross-ruff which otherwise could not have materialized. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 06:26:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:26:46 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA24648 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:26:40 +1000 Received: from [130.15.119.197] (DU197.N119.QueensU.CA [130.15.119.197]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA24491 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:26:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My apologies, I inadvertently sent my last message (about a situation in the Canadian National Team Championship) without a subject line. This note has the intended subject line. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 06:27:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:27:04 +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 GAA24657 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:26:58 +1000 Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-159-62.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.62]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA30345 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:26:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37125784.5C647069@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:28:52 -0700 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: Revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson sent this extremely good problem: > > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT > QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT > Jx Qxx AP > AKQxx J10xx > Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with > a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few > diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, > establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, > which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the > end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes > his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? This is extremely tough. Declarer would not have a bottom had I been playing the same way; I might have cashed my 8 tricks without the revoke, hoping the spade K was offside and I'd have some company and some going down a bonus trick if they fail to cash the club A (remember, I don't see all the hands when I'm playing) or if scum-sucking South bares the spade king early and keeps a bunch of his hearts. With the revoke, a new problem emerges: Will the others in the field 1) get to 3N 2) take the hook and 3) win the hook? I am certainly unconvinced that the cash-out is wrong. I might have done the same thing, despite now seeing the hand and seeing others' responses that the cashout is wrong. The next question is what is equity? I would be inclined to give declarer his 10 tricks; I think the revoke does make the cashout more attractive; those who lose the hook will be down 1, and I will make. Additionally, I believe the hook to be likely to be off; but hooking it with most opponents is going to lead to the same number of tricks. Hmmm. What's the field? Who's the declarer? Tough questions, tough enough that I'd like to be there. However, unless the questions are answered in a way which clearly indicates adjustment is wrong, I'd adjust. Question 2: Suppose I am the declarer, and upon inquiry I say: "I seriously doubt I'd take the hook in any case, but there is a non-zero chance I would have." Or, what if I'm playing Cohen/Berkowitz and I say "If you think I'm taking the hook, you are grievously mistaken. These punks will evilly bare the king too often for my tastes, so I'm cashing this sucker out." Really good problem. --JRM > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 08:22:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:22:27 +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 IAA25154 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:22:19 +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 SAA02927 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 18:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id SAA10939 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 18:22:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 18:22:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904122222.SAA10939@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Don Kersey > After a prolonged hesitation, West won the club Q and continued with the 7. > South ruffed in dummy, led a spade, and misguessed, running it to the Q for > down 1. There are many issues in this case, but I'll comment on two of them. > West said that when the club was led to trick 7, his first conclusion was > that he must win the club Q (since winning with the J would mark him with > the Q), and the rest of the time was spent considering what he should do > after winning the Q, and that he had every right to this time for > consideration. Basically, he is saying that "time shifting" is legal. Would he have made the same argument if the C-Q were singleton? There are people who think time shifting ought to be legal, but I thought it was settled law that it isn't. In the language of L73F2, West has no "demonstrable bridge reason" for hesitating before playing the C-Q. > Further, West pointed out that in his defensive methods, > "2nd and 4th" leads were used, so that from a holding of Q73, his first > club lead would have been the 7, not the 3; thus South should have got the > position right in any case. This argument is closely related to "Equity in MI Cases," on which thread I owe the list a message. But one of my strongest conclusions is that, popular as it may be, the argument "He should have gotten it right even with the MI" should be ignored (at least as long as the error wasn't "wild or gambling action"). The right question to ask is: with correct information (i.e., if West had played the C-Q in tempo), would declarer have gotten the guess right? As I say, there are other issues to consider, but West's two arguments do his case no good at all. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 09:20:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:20:19 +1000 Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA25474 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:20:13 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id TAA08066; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:19:56 -0400 To: Don Kersey From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There's something I don't understand. What did declarer think West was hesitating over? Did he suppose West was considering whether or not to duck the setting trick? In any case I think the law is clear. If the hesitation made the losing line more attractive, and West could have known that it would, then an adjustment must be made under Law 12C2. A committee could certainly award split scores, if they judge the "most likely" and "at all probable" results, absent the hesitation, are different. I would discount West's statement about his side's lead agreements. East can't need to know the club count, so there's no reason for West to provide it to the declarer. West can try to claim that he's bad enough that he'd always do so anyway, but we need not give this any credence. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 09:32:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:32:01 +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 JAA25510 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:31:53 +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 10WqB4-000AL6-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 23:31:42 +0000 Message-ID: <+OMCEFBTFoE3EwjO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:27:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Law 25A and L45C4B MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L25A: .... a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. ..... L45C4B: A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; .... Following my article concerning Vancouver Case #5, a number of emails and posts have made me realise that there is a popular misconception in the ACBL about the meaning of these two Laws, especially where a "change of mind" comes in to them. Obviously, the actual words "change of mind" do not appear, and several people seem to have followed the view of the Screening Director that a "pause for thought" means a "change of mind". This is not the case. The word inadvertent means that it was not intended, and an inadvertent call, play or designation means that the one intended was not the one actually said or made. Thus an inadvertent call or designation can be described as a "slip of the tongue" or "slip of the hand". If the player changes his mind, then the call or play was not "inadvertent". The reference in the Laws to "without pause for thought" gives an additional test as to whether a call/play may be changed. It may not be changed if it is not inadvertent, but even if inadvertent it may not be changed if there is a pause for thought. In the case from Vancouver that led to this discussion, the play of the spade from dummy may or may not have been inadvertent, as the AC considered at length: but any attempt to change it was after a pause for thought so legally it could not be changed, which the AC and Directors failed to realise. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 11:05:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:05:01 +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 LAA25795 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:04:54 +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 UAA22927 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:04:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0RX2401V Mon, 12 Apr 99 19:52:23 Message-ID: <9904121952.0RX2401@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 19:52:23 Subject: L73D-F To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk could have known that the hesitation could deceive declarer into concluding that east held the missing club J- Such as W fears that E's jack will drop under the Q, or will drop on the third round. This distribution knowledge would have an effect on the play of the spades. However, the distribution is uncovered on the very next trick after the lead of the third club. Essentially the hand boils down to not losing two spade tricks. As a result of the deceptive mannerism on the second club trick, declarer was deprived of finding the opportunity to pitch a spade on the third club. It is noted that Declarer could have still recovered had they found the spade ace. Effectively, declarer proved that they got the spades wrong but was not given the opportunity to get the clubs right. The deception was illegal under L73F2. Declarer took a false inference from the deception. I am inclined to adjudicate that declarer would get the clubs right only a fraction of the time [in the neighborhood of 50%, probably less since E doulbeled diamonds with lousy diamonds]. I do not buy the argument that declarer would always get it right after an in tempo CQ. It would be appropriate to award a weighted adjusted score for 10 tricks and 9 tricks. However, in North America, the weighted score is not permitted. In that case, the adjustment for the NOS is 10 tricks and for the OS, 9 tricks [result stands]. About west's huddle. While west was entitled to think, his thinking does not exclude the possibility of it being a basis for an adverse adjusted score. By west's admission, he intended to use a deceptive club play to maximize the chance that declarer would trump his 'winning club' in the event that he held four. He used a huddle to find the play. It was that huddle that reinforced this picture in declarer's mind. At the time west made his play he knew he would be on lead to the next trick. He also knew that he could leave his card face up to give him time to think of his next play prior to the start of the problem trick or to the next trick. Taking time to think under those conditions would not be tempo sensitive, at least to the extent that a huddle during the trick would be. West chose to not do this. He intended to huddle in violation of L73D2. He had no demonstrable bridge reason to huddle prior to play to the trick. I am inclined to assess a PP for the illegal deception. Roger Pewick B>From: Don Kersey B>I would appreciate comments on the following situation, which arose B>during the weekend in the Zone Final of the Canadian National Teams B>Championship. B>(In spite of the various actions taken on this deal, you should assume a B>reasonable standard around the table.) B>East deals, none vul. B> J10 B> KQ6542 B> 104 B> 1096 B>Q8532 A74 B>A3 109 B>73 Q98652 B>QJ73 K5 B> K96 B> J87 B> AKJ B> A842 B>South opened 1N (15-17), and North transferred with 2D, doubled by East. B>South accepted the transfer, and West bid 2S. North competed with 3H, B>and South bid game. B>The diamond lead ran to the J, and West won the first round of hearts B>and switched to the club 3, to the K and A. South drew the remaining B>trumps, then cashed the diamonds, discarding a club, and led a club in B>this position: B> J10 B> KQ65 B> - B> 10 B>Q853 A74 B>- - B>- Q98 B>QJ7 5 B> K96 B> J B> - B> 842 B>After a prolonged hesitation, West won the club Q and continued with the B>7. B>South ruffed in dummy, led a spade, and misguessed, running it to the Q B>for down 1. B>Declarer now requested a ruling, saying that the long hesitation before B>West won the club queen had convinced him that East must have the club B>J. B>West said that when the club was led to trick 7, his first conclusion B>was that he must win the club Q (since winning with the J would mark him B>with the Q), and the rest of the time was spent considering what he B>should do after winning the Q, and that he had every right to this time B>for consideration. Further, West pointed out that in his defensive B>methods, "2nd and 4th" leads were used, so that from a holding of Q73, B>his first club lead would have been the 7, not the 3; thus South should B>have got the position right in any case. South countered that at the B>point of decision, he knew that either West's play of the Q or West's B>original club lead was a falsecard, and he assumed it was the lead B>because of the long hesitation. B>After a prompt win of the Q, he would certainly have let the B>continuation of the 7 run to his 8, because of the defenders' lead B>agreements. B>How would you rule? B>_________________________________________________________________________ B>Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 B>Kingston, Ontario, Canada B>------------------------------------------------------------------------- B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 11:04:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:04:51 +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 LAA25788 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:04:45 +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 UAA22919 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:04:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0RX0401U Mon, 12 Apr 99 19:52:19 Message-ID: <9904121952.0RX0401@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 19:52:19 Subject: REVOKE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The only source of tricks that are not top tricks must come from spade finesses. The revoke did not deprive declarer from taking spade finesses. Therefore declarer lost no equity from the revoke. Ruling under 64C= 9 tricks. Imo, it was not good form to ask for a 64C adjustment because revoke did not damage and it was an unnecessary delay of game, In fact, it gave declarer the chance for an extra trick. Roger Pewick B> Kxxxx W S N E B> x B> xxx 1NT B>QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT B>Jx Qxx AP B>AKQxx J10xx B>Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx B> AK10xxxx B> x Matchpoints B> Kxx B>Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with B>a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few B>diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, B>establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, B>which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the B>end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes B>his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. B>This is a bottom! Unlucky! B>Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? B>-- B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 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 Apr 13 11:24:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:24:49 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA25842 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:24:37 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10Wrw4-000B4b-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:24:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:18:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT >QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT >Jx Qxx AP >AKQxx J10xx >Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with >a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few >diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, >establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, >which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the >end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes >his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? > Declarer is a trick ahead of the room provided he follows the room line. Consequently his failure to take the hook is his problem. He'd got a top already and for some reason wanted to convert it into more of a top or a bottom. Subsequent not consequent. Result stands 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 Apr 13 12:26:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:26:32 +1000 Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA26016 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:26:20 +1000 Received: from p3as02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.59] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #2) id 10Wstw-0002Ra-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:26:12 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:15:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8553$7336bee0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It sounds as though you are on a fishing expedition.What do these hooks do? As I understand the problem, which is with great difficulty, and which has been made more difficult by John Mayne's vernacular, I do not think it necessary to so malign the South who _may_hold the King of Spades. There has been a revoke and TD is asked to judge whether or not a Law 64C adjudication would be in favour of the NOs. In my opinion the result was subsequent to the revoke, but not consequent upon it. I would rule that the table result should stand. Anne -----Original Message----- From: John R. Mayne Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 9:51 PM Subject: Re: Revoke > > >David Stevenson sent this extremely good problem: >> >> Kxxxx W S N E >> x >> xxx 1NT >> QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT >> Jx Qxx AP >> AKQxx J10xx >> Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx >> AK10xxxx >> x Matchpoints >> Kxx >> >> Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with >> a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few >> diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, >> establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, >> which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the >> end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes >> his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. >> >> This is a bottom! Unlucky! >> >> Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? >I don't see all the hands when I'm playing) or if scum-sucking South >bares the spade king early and keeps a bunch of his hearts. >Or, what if I'm playing Cohen/Berkowitz and I say "If you think I'm >taking the hook, you are grievously mistaken. These punks will evilly >bare the king too often for my tastes, so I'm cashing this sucker out." Oh dear !!!! >--JRM > > >> >> -- >> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >> Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ >> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= >> Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 12:26:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:26:35 +1000 Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA26017 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:26:24 +1000 Received: from p3as02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.59] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #2) id 10Wsty-0002Ra-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:26:14 +0000 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:27:12 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8555$23652c60$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: Don Kersey To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 8:25 PM >I would appreciate comments on the following situation, which arose during >the weekend in the Zone Final of the Canadian National Teams Championship. >(In spite of the various actions taken on this deal, you should assume a >reasonable standard around the table.) > >East deals, none vul. > > J10 > KQ6542 > 104 > 1096 >Q8532 A74 >A3 109 >73 Q98652 >QJ73 K5 > K96 > J87 > AKJ > A842 > >South opened 1N (15-17), and North transferred with 2D, doubled by East. >South accepted the transfer, and West bid 2S. North competed with 3H, and >South bid game. > >The diamond lead ran to the J, and West won the first round of hearts and >switched to the club 3, to the K and A. South drew the remaining trumps, >then cashed the diamonds, discarding a club, and led a club in this >position: > > J10 > KQ65 > - > 10 >Q853 A74 >- - >- Q98 >QJ7 5 > K96 > J > - > 842 > >After a prolonged hesitation, West won the club Q and continued with the 7. >South ruffed in dummy, led a spade, and misguessed, running it to the Q for >down 1. > >Declarer now requested a ruling, saying that the long hesitation before >West won the club queen had convinced him that East must have the club J. >West said that when the club was led to trick 7, his first conclusion was >that he must win the club Q (since winning with the J would mark him with >the Q), and the rest of the time was spent considering what he should do >after winning the Q, and that he had every right to this time for >consideration. Further, West pointed out that in his defensive methods, >"2nd and 4th" leads were used, so that from a holding of Q73, his first >club lead would have been the 7, not the 3; thus South should have got the >position right in any case. South countered that at the point of decision, >he knew that either West's play of the Q or West's original club lead was a >falsecard, and he assumed it was the lead because of the long hesitation. >After a prompt win of the Q, he would certainly have let the continuation >of the 7 run to his 8, because of the defenders' lead agreements. > >How would you rule? West, obviously and by his own admission , was always going to win this trick. West's hesitation was probably because he was thinking about the subsequent plays. But, could he have known at the time, that his hesitation could be benficial to his side. The answer is surely _Yes_. I rule in favour of the NOs, possible awarding a split score having decided that declarer would get it right 50% of the time, had the hesitation not occurred. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 12:41:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:41:46 +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 MAA26079 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:41:41 +1000 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id MAA17082; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:40:42 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma017059; Tue, 13 Apr 99 12:40:34 +1000 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 MAA10446; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:40:33 +1000 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA19949; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:42:39 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:38:48 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Information for declarer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Another simple problem :) Declarer plays 4S and receives the lead of the HA. He enquires about the leads and is told: "Ace lead is for attitude, King lead is for count. On an Ace lead, high is encouraging" Declarer felt this was inadequate - and wished to know what honour holdings were promised by an Ace lead vs. a King lead. The defenders felt that they had given their full system understandings (not a well established partnership, but both players of expert standard). What are defender's responsibilities? What are the laws? What should the director do in such circumstances? [Even comments about the role of active ethics in all this would be interesting and appreciated.] As usual, there is a storm in a tea-cup that may become a tornado regarding this issue. Cheers Peter Newman Chairman, Tournament Committee, NSWBA From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 15:51:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA26457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:51:55 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA26451 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:51:48 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial53.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.53]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA15893; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:51:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01be8555$23652c60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:49:20 -0400 To: "Anne Jones" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:27 PM -0400 4/12/99, Anne Jones wrote: >I rule in favour >of the NOs, possible awarding a split score having decided that declarer >would get it right 50% of the time, had the hesitation not occurred. Let's leave aside the facts of the case at hand, but assume there was an infraction which led to damage. Please explain to me why you would consider awarding a split score if you estimate declarer would have made the hand 50% of the time in the absence of the infraction. I've seen many directors and committees rule this way, but I do not understand the reason. Law 12C2 specifies that we must award the NOS the the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. In the ACBL we've been told that "likely" means better than one chance in three. The Law also specifies that the OS must receive the score for the the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. That would make the ruling -420 for the OS, +420 for the NOS. I'm guessing that's not what you meant by a split score. Note that since this case occurred under the ACBL's jurisdiction Law 12C3 does not apply. AW From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 17:06:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA26609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:06:56 +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 RAA26604 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:06:42 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.79]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id DAA01646; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:02:15 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <002501be8573$7690ffe0$4f6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: , "Don Kersey" References: Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:04:14 -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 This reminds me of a very similar situation that occurred at Vilamoura in the European Championships. It was the last hand of the last match of the day and this table was late. The declarer had Txxx in hand and dummy held AJxx. Declarer led small from dummy part way through the hand and RHO tanked for quite a while before playing the K from KQ9. At the crucial end position, declarer tried the finesse in this suit and went one off when another line would have succeeded. Of course, there was a cry of foul and I ruled that the contract was made. I berated RHO for the fact that if they wish to think in a position where they had no problem, they certainly MUST play the honest card. Aside from that, what they did was nothing to do with bridge and is not how the game should be played. The player took some umbrage with my attitude and asked for an appeal. Well, the AC upheld the ruling (of course) and made it clear in no uncertain terms that the player should be careful in the future as what they did bordered on the unethical. I remember my feeling at the time was one of satisfaction that the AC felt it necessary to issue a verbal reprimand to the player AND keep the deposit. As your situation was almost exactly similar, I again wonder why bridge players feel that they can think about their play to a certain trick when they have absolutely no problem as to which card they are going to play. My defender made some facetious argument about the fact they were thinking of playing the nine so that their partner could win the trick. Surely your defender was not thinking of ducking and so therefore they can play whichever card is most likely to deceive declarer and then decide what to do having won the trick. They may not pause to decide what to do later when they have no problem at this trick other than which card to play from equals. In attempting to deceive, their cards must be played in an even tempo. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 17:18:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA26634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:18:06 +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 RAA26629 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:17:58 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.79]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id DAA01685; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:13:26 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: , "Peter Newman" References: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> Subject: Re: Information for declarer Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:15:25 -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 What is the problem ? If declarer asks from what holdings we would lead the Ace and from what we would lead the King, we are obligated to write down the combinations where we would lead each card. If the defenders refuse than the TD obligates them to do so. Full disclosure. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 18:12:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA26687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:12:59 +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 SAA26682 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:12:52 +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 IAA21212 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:12:15 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 IAA28263 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:10:32 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990413101233.007d8a10@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:12:33 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Information for declarer In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:38 13/04/99 +1000, Peter Newman wrote: >Hi all, > >Another simple problem :) > >Declarer plays 4S and receives the lead of the HA. >He enquires about the leads and is told: >"Ace lead is for attitude, King lead is for count. On an Ace lead, high is >encouraging" > >Declarer felt this was inadequate - and wished to know what honour holdings >were promised by an Ace lead vs. a King lead. > >The defenders felt that they had given their full system understandings >(not a well established partnership, but both players of expert standard). > >What are defender's responsibilities? To follow law! >What are the laws? Full disclosure of agreements! >What should the director do in such circumstances? To have law applied > >[Even comments about the role of active ethics in all this would be >interesting and appreciated.] Irrelevant Very simple: defender must explain what he knows by agreemment or previous experience of his partnership, about holdings relevant with Ace or king lead: what he knows, he says and if he does not know, he says he doesn't know. If he has never met this lead situation with this partner, he is not required to give a lecture about when it could be more useful to lead ace or king. JP Rocafort > >As usual, there is a storm in a tea-cup that may become a tornado regarding >this issue. > >Cheers > >Peter Newman >Chairman, Tournament Committee, NSWBA > > ________________________________________________________________ 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 Apr 13 18:34:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA26727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:34:06 +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 SAA26722 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:33:59 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-172.uunet.be [194.7.14.172]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA28526 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:33:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37123AA3.73CDE999@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:25:39 +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: Revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT > QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT > Jx Qxx AP > AKQxx J10xx > Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with > a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few > diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, > establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, > which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the > end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes > his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? > Nice one, David ! Of course we "feel" that we should not give declarer anything, but that won't work. We need to argue it out. L64C speaks of "insufficiently compensated". Let's calculate the damage. Before the revoke, declarer was in the following position : either the Spade King is in North, in which case he will make 10 tricks, and score slightly above average (we presume), or the king is in south, and he has seven, and slightly below average. He has the extra chance of going safe for one down. He has already decided not to do that. After the revoke, he is in a different situation. Now he can go for eight or eleven, or safe for nine. If the king is in north, the safe line is a bottom, the risky one a lone top. If the King is in south, the safe line is a top, the risky one an average, because still one trick over all others that risk it. That would make me decide the risky line is the one to go for. By choosing the safe line, he has no-one but himself to blame. Perhaps not a legalistic approach, but certainly one you could explain to the player. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 19:49:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:49:11 +1000 Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA26894 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:49:04 +1000 Received: from p7fs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.128] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #2) id 10Wzni-0004ea-00; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:48:15 +0000 Message-ID: <001601be8592$9c7cda20$808193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Law 25A and L45C4B Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:46:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 13 April 1999 01:03 Subject: Law 25A and L45C4(b) -------- \x/ --------- > . The word inadvertent means that it was not >intended, and an inadvertent call, play or designation means that the >one intended was not the one actually said or made. Thus an inadvertent >call or designation can be described as a "slip of the tongue" or "slip >of the hand". If the player changes his mind, then the call or play was >not "inadvertent". > > The reference in the Laws to "without pause for thought" gives an >additional test as to whether a call/play may be changed. It may not be >changed if it is not inadvertent, but even if inadvertent it may not be >changed if there is a pause for thought > ------------- \x/ -------------- ++++ As an interpretation of the language of the law this is impeccable ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 20:05:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:05:18 +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 UAA26944 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:04:59 +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 MAA11072; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:04:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26578; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:04:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:04:20 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: <37123AA3.73CDE999@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > After the revoke, he is in a different situation. Now he > can go for eight or eleven, or safe for nine. What I think you should tell declarer is that when he takes the normal line, he'll always make 1 trick more than any other declarer playing the same contract and thus get a better matchpoint score. With the safe line, he takes exactly 9 tricks. If the field takes 7 tricks, then he has a better matchpoint score BUT in that case, down 1 would also be a better score. If the field takes 8 tricks, then it doesn't matter how you get to 9 tricks. If the field takes 10 tricks, then the penalty trick again makes this a better score. So, the safe line never puts declarer in a better position than the normal line. 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 Apr 13 21:13:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:13:51 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27299 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:13:31 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10X17v-0005Va-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:13:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:02:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Of course, it should read [my apologies]: Kxxxx W N E S x xxx 1NT 2H QJx Qxxx A10x 3H P 3NT AP Jx Qxx AKQxx J10xx Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx AK10xxxx x Matchpoints Kxx Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. This is a bottom! Unlucky! Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 22:39:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:39:12 +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 WAA27626 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:39:04 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n07.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.7]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA02683 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:37:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990413083320.00815c90@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:33:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Information for declarer In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990413101233.007d8a10@phedre.meteo.fr> References: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:12 AM 4/13/99 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > If he has never met this lead situation with this partner, he is not >required to give a lecture about when it could be more useful to lead ace >or king. Something about this seems wrong to me. If two experts agree to play "Ace asks attitude, king ask count" there is some general bridge knowledge as to what types of holdings one would lead the ace from and what holdings one would lead the king from. Perhaps declarer should be in possession of this general knowledge. But, it does not seem right to me to say that a partnership who has encountered this lead situation must explain this general bridge knowledge while a partnership who has not met this lead situation does not need to explain. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 22:49:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:49:08 +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 WAA27655 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:48:59 +1000 Received: from p74s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.117] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10X2cG-00054z-00; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:48:36 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:49:09 +0100 Message-ID: <01be85ac$0667fd20$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: Adam Wildavsky To: Anne Jones Cc: BLML Date: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 6:51 AM Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception >At 10:27 PM -0400 4/12/99, Anne Jones wrote: >>I rule in favour >>of the NOs, possible awarding a split score having decided that declarer >>would get it right 50% of the time, had the hesitation not occurred. > >Let's leave aside the facts of the case at hand, but assume there was an >infraction which led to damage. Please explain to me why you would consider >awarding a split score if you estimate declarer would have made the hand >50% of the time in the absence of the infraction. I've seen many directors >and committees rule this way, but I do not understand the reason. You are, I think, correct. It is the AC that in this jurisdicion, if not in yours, has the legal mandate to vary an asigned score to "do equity". (I had my wrong hat on when I wrote) > >Law 12C2 specifies that we must award the NOS the the most favorable result >that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. In the ACBL we've been >told that "likely" means better than one chance in three. The Law also >specifies that the OS must receive the score for the the most unfavorable >result that was at all probable. That would make the ruling -420 for the >OS, +420 for the NOS. Yes. I'm guessing that's not what you meant by a split >score. No. By split score what I meant was that if the award as per Law 12C2 produced a score which was gross then the AC may consider that declarer might without the infraction "get it right" a certain percentage of the time, and may "get it wrong" a certain percentage of the time then the calculation of matchpoints would be made to reflect this. For instance, if the running of the club return to the eight was so much against the probability of it being succesful that the field was not "getting it right" then a score in matchpoints equivalent to 70/40 may be awarded, rather than +/- 420 wich may be 100% of available points to NOs. (Now I expect DWS and JP to tell me that I do not understand split scoring.) > >Note that since this case occurred under the ACBL's jurisdiction Law 12C3 >does not apply. Is that so? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 23:26:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:26:50 +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 XAA27756 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:26:43 +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 IAA02689 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:26:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0BJ5600J Tue, 13 Apr 99 08:12:31 Message-ID: <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 99 08:12:31 Subject: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do fear that the huddle is so convincing that playing 'a true card' can not break the deception, and hence is not an adequate advice for avoiding an adjustment for they who commit a deceptive huddle. Roger Pewick B>From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" B>This reminds me of a very similar situation that occurred at Vilamoura B>in the European Championships. B>It was the last hand of the last match of the day and this table was B>late. B>The declarer had Txxx in hand and B>dummy held AJxx. Declarer led small from dummy part way through the B>hand and RHO tanked for quite a B>while before playing the K from KQ9. At the crucial end position, B>declarer tried the finesse in this suit and B>went one off when another line would have succeeded. Of course, there B>was a cry of foul and I ruled that B>the contract was made. I berated RHO for the fact that if they wish to B>think in a position where they had no B>problem, they certainly MUST play the honest card. Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 13 23:54:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:54:08 +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 XAA27856 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:54:01 +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 NAA04607 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:53:26 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 NAA28632 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:51:43 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990413155346.007d1ea0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:53:46 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Information for declarer In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990413083320.00815c90@maine.rr.com> References: <3.0.5.32.19990413101233.007d8a10@phedre.meteo.fr> <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:33 13/04/99 -0400, Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 10:12 AM 4/13/99 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >> If he has never met this lead situation with this partner, he is not >>required to give a lecture about when it could be more useful to lead ace >>or king. > >Something about this seems wrong to me. If two experts agree to play "Ace >asks attitude, king ask count" there is some general bridge knowledge as to >what types of holdings one would lead the ace from and what holdings one >would lead the king from. Perhaps declarer should be in possession of this >general knowledge. But, it does not seem right to me to say that a >partnership who has encountered this lead situation must explain this >general bridge knowledge while a partnership who has not met this lead >situation does not need to explain. > I agree there may be confusion between experience and general knowledge and it might be difficult to draw a line between both. I understand you note a conflict between two situations but are note sure of the side in which it should be resolved: sharing personal valuation or concealing partnership experience? Generally speaking, bridge is an area in which there can't be anything like "industrial secret". Everybody is compelled to share his experience, his knowledge, his research works with everybody, which does not promote creativity. You can spend 10 years to manufacture the best bidding system one could imagine and the first opponent you are going to play against may request a free copy and start using it the next day, without you getting any royalties. I don't know any acceptable solution to avoid this anomaly. Does anybody? JP Rocafort >Tim ________________________________________________________________ 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 Apr 14 00:37:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:37:34 +1000 Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA00457 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:37:28 +1000 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA14426 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:37:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199904131437.KAA14426@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Information for declarer To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:37:14 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990413083320.00815c90@maine.rr.com> from "Tim Goodwin" at Apr 13, 99 08:33:20 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin writes: > > At 10:12 AM 4/13/99 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > If he has never met this lead situation with this partner, he is not > >required to give a lecture about when it could be more useful to lead ace > >or king. > > Something about this seems wrong to me. If two experts agree to play "Ace > asks attitude, king ask count" there is some general bridge knowledge as to > what types of holdings one would lead the ace from and what holdings one > would lead the king from. Perhaps declarer should be in possession of this > general knowledge. But, it does not seem right to me to say that a > partnership who has encountered this lead situation must explain this > general bridge knowledge while a partnership who has not met this lead > situation does not need to explain. > In fact there was a ruling in a World Championship match (Semifininal if memory serves. Poland/Sweden - again if memory serves) that said in effect that you can be asked in great detail to explain what you and your parter consider bridge logic. The Poles were playing 3 way signals on the opening lead - varying them according to bridge logic. Declarer did not find this explanation satisfactory. Eventually the director ordered a fuller explanation. (I know this is kind of vague. If there's any interest, I'll did up the hand.) -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 00:38:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:38:23 +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 AAA00477 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:38:10 +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 KAA24279 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:37:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.2) id KAA00602 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:38:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:38:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904131438.KAA00602@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25A and L45C4B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > L25A: > .... a player may substitute his intended call for an > inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, > without pause for thought. ..... > > > L45C4B: > A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation > if he does so without pause for thought; .... David's is a very important message, and it may be worth emphasizing. > The reference in the Laws to "without pause for thought" gives an > additional test as to whether a call/play may be changed. So there are two tests to be applied: what was the intention at the moment the call or designation was made*, and what happened between that moment and the attempt to change. > but any > attempt to change it was after a pause for thought so legally it could > not be changed, which the AC and Directors failed to realise. In fact, as far as I can tell from the writeup of the Vancouver case, declarer never attempted to change her play. There was only a request for an adjusted score after the fact. This case might be a fruitful one for an appeal to the National Authority. At least then we would have an official interpretation for the ACBL. *This calls for mind reading, and everyone knows my opinion of that. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 01:00:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:00:47 +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 BAA00546 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:00:33 +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 10X4fh-000O7D-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:00:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:41:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception References: <002501be8573$7690ffe0$4f6199d0@john> In-Reply-To: <002501be8573$7690ffe0$4f6199d0@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >This reminds me of a very similar situation that occurred at Vilamoura in >the European Championships. >It was the last hand of the last match of the day and this table was late. >The declarer had Txxx in hand and >dummy held AJxx. Declarer led small from dummy part way through the hand >and RHO tanked for quite a >while before playing the K from KQ9. At the crucial end position, declarer >tried the finesse in this suit and >went one off when another line would have succeeded. Of course, there was a >cry of foul and I ruled that >the contract was made. I berated RHO for the fact that if they wish to >think in a position where they had no >problem, they certainly MUST play the honest card. I do not understand this, for two reasons. [1] What Law requires a player to do this? [2] From KQ9, the K *is* the 'honest' card. The Law requires you not to play out of tempo without a demonstrable bridge reason. It does not say you may not false-card after a tank. Perhaps I have missed something? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 01:00:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:00:48 +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 BAA00547 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:00:37 +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 10X4fh-000O7C-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:00:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:38:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Information for declarer References: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> In-Reply-To: <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >What is the problem ? If declarer asks from what holdings we would lead the >Ace and from what >we would lead the King, we are obligated to write down the combinations >where we would lead >each card. If the defenders refuse than the TD obligates them to do so. >Full disclosure. Many defenders do not lead the ace and king from different holdings. How can they write an agreement down when they have no such agreement? It is possible to play, and I have played, that Ace asks for count, and King asks for attitude. You lead whichever from AK seems suitable in view of the full hand and the bidding. If asked to write down what holding you lead them from, you would correctly write down: A from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) K from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) Full disclosure says that you must tell your opponents all your agreements. It does not mean that you have to invent agreements that you do not have because the opponents wish you to play their way. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 02:06:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:06:29 +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 CAA00879 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:06:21 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA08704 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:02:20 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904131602.LAA08704@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Law 25A and L45C4B To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:02:20 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to DWS for this post: > L25A: > .... a player may substitute his intended call for an > inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, > without pause for thought. ..... > > > L45C4B: > A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation > if he does so without pause for thought; .... > > > Following my article concerning Vancouver Case #5, a number of emails > and posts have made me realise that there is a popular misconception in > the ACBL about the meaning of these two Laws, especially where a "change I think this misunderstanding is understandable [if you will] and even defensible. > do not appear, and several people seem to have followed the view of the > Screening Director that a "pause for thought" means a "change of mind". > > This is not the case. The word inadvertent means that it was not > intended, and an inadvertent call, play or designation means that the > one intended was not the one actually said or made. Thus an inadvertent > call or designation can be described as a "slip of the tongue" or "slip > of the hand". If the player changes his mind, then the call or play was > not "inadvertent". Fair enough--on this I am sure we all agree. > The reference in the Laws to "without pause for thought" gives an > additional test as to whether a call/play may be changed. It may not be > changed if it is not inadvertent, but even if inadvertent it may not be > changed if there is a pause for thought. In the case from Vancouver > that led to this discussion, the play of the spade from dummy may or may > not have been inadvertent, as the AC considered at length: but any > attempt to change it was after a pause for thought so legally it could > not be changed, which the AC and Directors failed to realise. But what exactly is a 'pause for thought', then? This has come up before, but since we're in clarifying mode let's clarify. Suppose I call for a spade from dummy when I really meant a club. After making the call: a) I pause in shock and confusion when I see the 'wrong' card being played. b) I pause and think 'why on earth is dummy playing a spade???' c) I pause and think 'dummy played the wrong card--what am I supposed to do now?' d) I don't notice the card that has been played, and think 'after I win this club trick I'll run my diamonds, pitching hearts from dummy, and then I'll...hey, why is RHO playing a spade?' e) I pause and think 'will the attractive lady to my left think I'm a bigger idiot if I go ahead and play a spade here and go down in a ironclad contract, or if I admit I misspoke and ask to change to a club?' I suspect in the ACBL most TDs will allow the change in all five cases. Would such ruling be incorrect? If all 5 of these cases are acceptable changes under L45c4b, could you give us some examples of the kinds of cases where we should rule that, although the call/designation was clearly inadvertant, and no change of mind has occurred, there has still been a pause for thought? > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 02:15:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:15:37 +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 CAA00914 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:15:29 +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 QAA10439 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:14:52 GMT Received: from rubis.meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.7.1) id QAA10102 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 16:13:09 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990413181514.007ca540@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:15:14 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Information for declarer In-Reply-To: References: <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:38 13/04/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >>What is the problem ? If declarer asks from what holdings we would lead the >>Ace and from what >>we would lead the King, we are obligated to write down the combinations >>where we would lead >>each card. If the defenders refuse than the TD obligates them to do so. >>Full disclosure. > > Many defenders do not lead the ace and king from different holdings. >How can they write an agreement down when they have no such agreement? > > It is possible to play, and I have played, that Ace asks for count, >and King asks for attitude. You lead whichever from AK seems suitable >in view of the full hand and the bidding. > > If asked to write down what holding you lead them from, you would >correctly write down: > > A from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) > K from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) > Not so clear-cut: With AKQxx, you always lead K; with AKx, the A; with AKxx it may depend on other factors. The first times you play this leading convention you have to make some thinking to determine which card to lead; the next times you automatically lead using the experience accumulated in previous similar occurences. The question is: what part of your (present or past) thinking should you leave to the opponent or share with him? JP Rocafort > Full disclosure says that you must tell your opponents all your >agreements. It does not mean that you have to invent agreements that >you do not have because the opponents wish you to play their way. > >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 Apr 14 03:36:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 03:36:15 +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 DAA01116 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 03:36:07 +1000 Received: from ip161.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.161]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990413173522.EMBI11600.fep2@ip161.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:35:22 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Revoke Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:35:20 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37167c7e.1004874@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:04:20 +0200 (CEST), "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: >What I think you should tell declarer is that when he takes the normal >line, he'll always make 1 trick more than any other declarer playing the >same contract and thus get a better matchpoint score. I think I almost agree with that: no adjustment. However, at IMPs I would adjust: at IMPs, no one in his right mind would take the finesse after the revoke and no one in his right mind would NOT take the finesse without the revoke. At IMPs, declarer was damaged by the gift of a trick (which is interesting in itself!). Back to matchpoints: if declarer does not fully understand the difference between matchpoint scoring and IMPs, he may actually have been damaged. He may have tried to win the contract - which is probably what his bridge teacher taught him to do. So I don't think it is easy, and I think it depends on declarer's level. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 04:18:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:18:40 +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 EAA01343 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:18:27 +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 OAA11648 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:18:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904131817.OAA14630@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> (message from Peter Newman on Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:38:48 +1000) Subject: Re: Information for declarer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Newman writes: > Another simple problem :) > Declarer plays 4S and receives the lead of the HA. > He enquires about the leads and is told: > "Ace lead is for attitude, King lead is for count. On an Ace lead, high is > encouraging" > Declarer felt this was inadequate - and wished to know what honour holdings > were promised by an Ace lead vs. a King lead. > The defenders felt that they had given their full system understandings > (not a well established partnership, but both players of expert standard). In this case, I don't think there is much more information to be given. An ace shows a hand on which the opening leader wants to know count, while a king shows a hand on which he wants to know attitude. Leading from AKJxx, for example, he might want either, depending on how likely it was from the rest of his hand that partner has an antry or that dummy has a running suit. When a bid or play is a question by nature, it does not show any sepcific holding other than one which is interested in the answer. How would you explain Blackwood, for example? "Any hand which needs to know only the number of aces before making a slam decision." If there is information which the opponents might not know about the way this partnership uses the bid or play, that information should be given with the explanation. For example, I play two-way Stayman, and usually bid 2C rather than 2D with only a four-card major and game values. This is something the opponents are entitled to know; 2D is "general game-forcing hand, often without a four-card major, most often has a five-card major." -- 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 Apr 14 05:11:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 05:11:26 +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 FAA01609 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 05:11:19 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA21780 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:11:10 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > > I do fear that the huddle is so convincing that playing 'a true card' can > not break the deception, and hence is not an adequate advice for avoiding an > adjustment for they who commit a deceptive huddle. > The ethical player will say, "Sorry, I don't have a problem." If that gives away the holding, too bad. This has always been the policy after inadvertently hesitating before playing a singleton, and it should be employed whenever a hesitation sends the wrong message. Of course, if declarer doesn't believe you, that's not your fault. Playing against an expert from San Francisco at the 1975 St. Louis NABC, I had an established suit defending a notrump contract, but no entry. I took some time thinking about how I should discard in order to persuade declarer that I could be thrown in and endplayed. Then I realized that the thinking was bound to give declarer a false picture, so I said, "Sorry, I have no problem," which was true in a way. He smiled and said with a wink, "That's okay, Marv," and threw me in instead of successfully finessing. After I took all the tricks but one, he was very unhappy to learn that I did indeed have no problem. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 06:32:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:32:19 +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 GAA01808 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:32:12 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA24163 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:28:15 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904132028.PAA24163@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 15:28:15 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:04:20 +0200 (CEST), "Henk Uijterwaal > (RIPE-NCC)" wrote: > > >What I think you should tell declarer is that when he takes the normal > >line, he'll always make 1 trick more than any other declarer playing the > >same contract and thus get a better matchpoint score. > > I think I almost agree with that: no adjustment. > > However, at IMPs I would adjust: at IMPs, no one in his right > mind would take the finesse after the revoke and no one in his > right mind would NOT take the finesse without the revoke. At > IMPs, declarer was damaged by the gift of a trick (which is > interesting in itself!). > > Back to matchpoints: if declarer does not fully understand the > difference between matchpoint scoring and IMPs, he may actually > have been damaged. He may have tried to win the contract - which > is probably what his bridge teacher taught him to do. > > So I don't think it is easy, and I think it depends on declarer's > level. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > I don't think we should accept this reasoning, from two perspectives: 1) The law is written so vaguely that we are not _required_ to give any redress to declarer here. Note that the words do not say "has been damaged" but rather "is insufficiently compensated". That is, if the compensation for the revoke wasn't enough to outweigh the damage the revoke did, we can give an adjusted score. But that is surely not the case here. It isn't that "one trick wasn't enough compensation", but rather that the one trick compensation led declarer astray. 2) Applying the law in your way radically upsets equity. I know some on this List think 'equity' is over-emphasized, but I don't happen to be one of them. :) What has happened here? A player has made a totally harmless revoke. It did not take a trick, then or in the future. It did not affect declarer's entries, or deprive him of a tempo, or mislead him about distribution. It was a meaningless revoke. I think, frankly, the one trick penalty is _more than sufficient_ compensation--pure equity alone would say there should be no penalty at all. But the law, for simplicity or whatever, dictates the penalty. If we are at IMPs, you are now saying that this totally meaningless revoke guarantees declarer a good score! He refuses the finesse, and if the finesse was working we give him the score for the working finesse. If the finesse wasn't working, we give him a game-score he couldn't possibly have made otherwise. Declarer knew that by taking the safety play he was foregoing the possibility of gaining the benefit of the working finesse, and so it is only fair that he accept the results. [And notice that at IMPs he is only 'losing' the score for an overtrick.] Now I know some of you will say that if the player revoked, he deserves a bad score no matter what. That isn't the way I view things. In any event, I do not see how anyone could argue that we are _required_ to give compensation, due to the imprecise wording of the law. -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 07:10:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:10:04 +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 HAA01928 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:09:57 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA25312 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:09:19 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 13 Apr 99 22:09 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception 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: I seem to recall a piece of advice (very good advice IMO, possibly a Bols tip) along the lines of "When you have a choice of plays don't make a play until you know what you are going to do next." I had always understood that adjustments for inadvertent hesitations never applied if the hesitator had a genuine problem - which it seems to me that he did in this case. J10 KQ65 - 10 Q853 A74 - J - Q98 QJ7 - K96 - - 8542 If you think it is easy to work out whether this variant is likely on the bidding *and* the best play (ie the one which is most likely to induce declarer to misguess spades) to cater to this, and other possible distributions then you are a far better player than I. South is entitled to draw the inference that West has a choice of plays. Any other conclusions he draws are at his own risk. I do not regard it as important the way West described "his problem" is different to my analysis of the problem - it is enough for me that the situation is such that genuine thought is required. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 07:34:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:34:52 +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 HAA02008 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:34:43 +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 RAA13701 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:34:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA00956 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:34:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904132134.RAA00956@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > I had always understood that adjustments for inadvertent hesitations never > applied if the hesitator had a genuine problem Yes, L73F2 requires that an "action" (including a hesitation) have "no demonstrable bridge reason" in order for there to be an adjustment. This was newly added to the text in 1997, but it was the accepted interpretation before that. > - which it seems to me that he did in this case. Are you seriously asserting that whether to play the C-Q or C-J was a genuine bridge problem? Of course there was a genuine bridge problem at the next trick, but that's not the legal issue, Bols tip or no. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 08:58:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:58:04 +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 IAA02265 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:57:58 +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 10XC7q-000E6D-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:57:51 +0000 Message-ID: <0wpE+hAL9qE3EwAI@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:43:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception In-Reply-To: <01be8555$23652c60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01be8555$23652c60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes snip >> >> J10 >> KQ6542 >> 104 >> 1096 >>Q8532 A74 >>A3 109 >>73 Q98652 >>QJ73 K5 >> K96 >> J87 >> AKJ >> A842 >> snip >> >>How would you rule? > >West, obviously and by his own admission , was always going to win this >trick. West's hesitation was probably because he was thinking about the >subsequent plays. But, could he have known at the time, that his hesitation >could be benficial to his side. The answer is surely _Yes_. I rule in favour >of the NOs, possible awarding a split score having decided that declarer >would get it right 50% of the time, had the hesitation not occurred. >Anne After the infraction ... The most favourable result likely ... ? No reason to award a split score IMO. 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 Apr 14 09:10:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:10:20 +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 JAA02294 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:10:16 +1000 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA18240; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:09:41 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma018220; Wed, 14 Apr 99 09:09:38 +1000 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 JAA07952; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:09:37 +1000 Received: from newmanpm by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21772; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:12:00 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990414084235.0096fd30@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:08:08 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Information for declarer In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990413181514.007ca540@phedre.meteo.fr> References: <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi again, Thanks for all the comments. On the surface it seems v. simple. Defenders owe the declarer a full explanation of their systemic agreements. No more, no less. This was well put by David Stevenson (as always :) ) > Full disclosure says that you must tell your opponents all your >agreements. It does not mean that you have to invent agreements that >you do not have because the opponents wish you to play their way. JP Rocafort wrote: >With AKQxx, you always lead K; with AKx, the A; with >AKxx it may depend on other factors. The first times you play this leading >convention you have to make some thinking to determine which card to lead; >the next times you automatically lead using the experience accumulated in >previous similar occurences. The question is: what part of your (present or >past) thinking should you leave to the opponent or share with him? This to me is the nub of the issue (and why I mentioned active ethics). If I agree A=Attitude, K=Count, Overlead other honours with count signals. What is my responsibility to the opponents when leading? I may with AKx always lead the Ace (like Jean-Pierre) but my partner may not. How can I explain something like this to the opponents. With active ethics I could perhaps say. "A=att etc. AND the card I lead will depend upon my hand, the bidding and what I think I need to know. Typically with AKQ (to some number) count is more important. With AKx typically attitude is more important." Would the opponents have redress when the lead was the K from AKx after this explanation? How much general bridge knowledge do you have to explain? What is general bridge knowledge. Many times I have heard that in "unusual" auctions you must explain all inferences to your opponents. This seems very difficult to me. For example: (I play strong club relay with my partner and we have the auction) 1C* 1H* 1S* 2D* 2H* 3C* 3NT Explained as: Opener has relayed showing 15+ any distribution Responder has shown : 5 spades, 2 hearts, 3 diamonds, 3 clubs with 9-13 points. Is it necessary to explain that opener is not interested in slam opposite 9-13? More complex: Now it is statistically true on this auction that partner is more likely to be worried about a minor suit than hearts. Suppose you give this information to your opponents and opener holds Ax, Ax, KQxx, KJxxx and they no longer lead a Heart. Do they have cause for redress? I wish that I could play in a game where the rules could be: "alert what your opponents need to know and tell them what they need to know". For 90% (I hope more) of players this would suffice. It is a pity that for the 10% (including the 2 people at the table at the time of the original described hand) it doesn't. Rgds, Peter Note: In Australia those who use this convention...usually play A=Attitude K=Kount [Easy to remember with a nice bit of onomatopoeia. I guess those down under (like England) play the reverse :)] -- Peter Newman Fujitsu Australia Limited +61-2-9452-9111 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 09:48:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:48:47 +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 JAA02395 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:48:41 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehn9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.233]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA32339 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:48:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:46:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:11 PM 4/13/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >The ethical player will say, "Sorry, I don't have a problem." If that >gives away the holding, too bad. This has always been the policy after >inadvertently hesitating before playing a singleton, and it should be >employed whenever a hesitation sends the wrong message. > >Of course, if declarer doesn't believe you, that's not your fault. >Playing against an expert from San Francisco at the 1975 St. Louis NABC, >I had an established suit defending a notrump contract, but no entry. I >took some time thinking about how I should discard in order to persuade >declarer that I could be thrown in and endplayed. Then I realized that >the thinking was bound to give declarer a false picture, so I said, >"Sorry, I have no problem," which was true in a way. He smiled and said >with a wink, "That's okay, Marv," and threw me in instead of >successfully finessing. After I took all the tricks but one, he was very >unhappy to learn that I did indeed have no problem. > I have often wondered about this exact situation. Does the satement "Sorry, I don't have a problem" when your behavior clearly suggests otherwise, really protect you from the consequences of a misleading huddle? In fact, you did have a problem, and declarer "correctly" read your huddle as suggesting a problem, even if he misguessed about the nature of that problem. If we apply the "could have known" standard to your hesitation, we will adjust against you here, notwithstanding your comment. Or so it seems to me, anyway. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 09:49:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:49:22 +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 JAA02402 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:49:15 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehn9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.233]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA20464 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:49:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990413194707.006f6f8c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:47:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Not Final Yet In-Reply-To: <97d71a25.24428c84@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:38 PM 4/11/99 EDT, Alan wrote: >David Grabiner writes: > >> An important principle applies here. If you have passed a decision to >> partner, you must respect partner's decision. For purposes of logical >> alternatives, your peers are now those players at your level who made >> the same judgment you did last turn. >> >> If East expected 5H to make, he could have bid 5S directly over 5H, >> which would be a good sacrifice if 5H goes down. He chose not to >> sacrifice, and West's penalty double should make it less likely that 5H >> will make, and not make it more likely that 5S will make, so East should >> not bid 5S now. Only the UI suggests that West was not confident about >> the double and that 5H might still make (if West considered a pass) or >> that 5S might still make (if West considered bidding it). > >I believe David is imposing a level of expertise on these players that >Suzanne attempted to suggest did not exist. It sounds like this player >passed 5H with no consideration whatsoever for the fact that this was not >going to end the auction. There was a time when we may all have been guilty >of one dimensional thinking like that. > >> Thus I would not allow the 5S bid here. If North had been the one to >> bid 5H, East could have argued that passing the double was not a logical >> alternative because it was very likely, given his hand, that either 5H >> or 5S would make. (I might not have accepted that argument, but it >> would have been a valid point.) >> >> (Even if there is a forcing-pass understanding, the ruling should be the >> same. When you make a forcing pass, you must accept partner's decision >> unless you are planning to pass-and-pull as a slam invitation.) > >I totally agree with your last statement, David. It is clear that most >responding to this query do not want to allow the 5S call. I am only >questioning whether we are allowing our expectations of assumed player >knowledge to color our reasoning. I would certainly laugh at any member of >this list who proposed they should now be able to bid 5S. But I'm not so >sure it is laughable given the very basic level of bridge these players >operated on. I still remember that many years ago I would often bd once to >often in an auction because of a fear of what the opponents might be able to >make. I'm taking a literal interpretation from what Suzanne presented us >with. I intend to question some players at the club tomorrow who are near >this level of bridge. I will be anxious to hear their responses. > >Alan LeBendig > I agree that players at this level are unaware of the nuances of focing or non-forcing passes, and also accept that weak players are loathe to defend doubled contracts, especially when they have overbid. All of that is reason to accept, pretty much at face value, the argument that this player might have taken out the double anyway, and did not base his run-out on UI. But of course that is not the legal standard at issue. Even if many players at this level would be reluctant to defend, some significant minority would leave the double in. It is clearly a logical alternative to do so. What does the hesitation suggest? Even the rawest of novices understands the general principle that partner's long hesitation before doubling suggests uncertainty about whether that is the best course, and thus the UI makes running out more attractive than it would otherwise be. So without challenging this player's integrity, it is clear-cut that this situation merits an adjustment under L16. The deeper issue, IMO, is the reluctance to adjust in such cases against inexperienced players. Although it is often defended in terms similar to what Alan has provided in this case (either they're too ignorant to apprehend LA's or too clueless to understand what the UI suggests), I suspect this attitude has more to do with marketing than with carefully considered legal reasoning. TD's are often hesitant to rule against weak players in any case, for fear of scaring them off of the game, and this is especially true at the club level, where directors' financial security may be tied to the turnout. I think this attitude is wrong. Players need to learn what is expected of them, and the earlier the better. I'm all for couching such score adjustment in as friendly and sympathetic a manner as possible, and I hope that stronger players who rely on director calls to intimidate weaker opponents will be severely rebuked, if not penalized. But I think the interests of the game are poorly served by refusing to enforce the laws against less experienced players. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 10:55:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:55:31 +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 KAA02535 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:55:25 +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 10XDxV-000L7C-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:55:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:05:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Information for declarer References: <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> <3.0.5.32.19990413181514.007ca540@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990413181514.007ca540@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >At 13:38 13/04/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >>>What is the problem ? If declarer asks from what holdings we would lead the >>>Ace and from what >>>we would lead the King, we are obligated to write down the combinations >>>where we would lead >>>each card. If the defenders refuse than the TD obligates them to do so. >>>Full disclosure. >> >> Many defenders do not lead the ace and king from different holdings. >>How can they write an agreement down when they have no such agreement? >> >> It is possible to play, and I have played, that Ace asks for count, >>and King asks for attitude. You lead whichever from AK seems suitable >>in view of the full hand and the bidding. >> >> If asked to write down what holding you lead them from, you would >>correctly write down: >> >> A from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) >> K from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) >> > Not so clear-cut: With AKQxx, you always lead K; with AKx, the A; with >AKxx it may depend on other factors. The first times you play this leading >convention you have to make some thinking to determine which card to lead; >the next times you automatically lead using the experience accumulated in >previous similar occurences. The question is: what part of your (present or >past) thinking should you leave to the opponent or share with him? If you have the agreements that you say, then, yes, you are required to share them. I have only played this agreement on infrequent occasions, and certainly had no such agreements. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 10:55:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:55:35 +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 KAA02534 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:55:24 +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 10XDxQ-000IWt-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:55:13 +0000 Message-ID: <6Q$$FUAxA+E3EwjV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:24:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 25A and L45C4B References: <199904131602.LAA08704@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904131602.LAA08704@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > But what exactly is a 'pause for thought', then? This has come up >before, but since we're in clarifying mode let's clarify. > Suppose I call for a spade from dummy when I really meant a club. >After making the call: > a) I pause in shock and confusion when I see the 'wrong' card >being played. The pause for thought is from the realisation that the wrong card has been played. This is pre-realisation shock! > b) I pause and think 'why on earth is dummy playing a spade???' Same answer. > c) I pause and think 'dummy played the wrong card--what am I >supposed to do now?' Well, this is in theory more tricky. You have realised the card is wrong. In theory no pause for thought is allowed now. I don't really think this is constructive thought, and we interpret this bit of the law generously, so we allow a little bit of this - so long as soon you surface and try to change the card. > d) I don't notice the card that has been played, and think 'after >I win this club trick I'll run my diamonds, pitching hearts from dummy, >and then I'll...hey, why is RHO playing a spade?' The pause for thought is from the realisation that the wrong card has been played. This is pre-realisation shock! > e) I pause and think 'will the attractive lady to my left think I'm >a bigger idiot if I go ahead and play a spade here and go down in a >ironclad contract, or if I admit I misspoke and ask to change to a club?' Same sort of answer as (c). > I suspect in the ACBL most TDs will allow the change in all five >cases. Would such ruling be incorrect? If all 5 of these cases are >acceptable changes under L45c4b, could you give us some examples of the >kinds of cases where we should rule that, although the call/designation >was clearly inadvertant, and no change of mind has occurred, there has >still been a pause for thought? a, b and d are not pauses for thought after the realisation, and the card may be changed. c and e are not quite the same. However, with a generous approach to this, I doubt that c or e would stop us allowing the change so long as they were very short. It is more a matter of length of time. Once the player has realised that the wrong thing has occurred, then he has a short time to try and make a change: after that the pause for thought kicks in. In practice, the pause for thought is very rare, and I can only remember one case in the last year where the change should have been disallowed: Vancouver #5! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 11:31:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:31:45 +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 LAA02650 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:31:33 +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 UAA20155 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:31:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0SB8702Q Tue, 13 Apr 99 20:09:12 Message-ID: <9904132009.0SB8702@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 99 20:09:12 Subject: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not so quick to say that bridge problems include such things as figuring out how to commit an illegal deception. Whether a player knows that a situation is tempo sensitive or not, an improper deception can be the basis for an appropriate adjusted score. Roger Pewick B>In-Reply-To: B>I seem to recall a piece of advice (very good advice IMO, possibly a B>Bols tip) along the lines of "When you have a choice of plays don't B>make a play until you know what you are going to do next." It seems that the player did not heed the BOLs tip since they did not contemplate which card they were to play next before they broke clubs. B>I had always understood that adjustments for inadvertent hesitations B>never applied if the hesitator had a genuine problem - which it seems B>to me that he did in this case. B> J10 B> KQ65 B> - B> 10 B>Q853 A74 B>- J B>- Q98 B>QJ7 - B> K96 B> - B> - B> 8542 B>If you think it is easy to work out whether this variant is likely on B>the bidding *and* the best play (ie the one which is most likely to B>induce declarer to misguess spades) to cater to this, and other B>possible distributions then you are a far better player than I. B>South is entitled to draw the inference that West has a choice of plays. B>Any other conclusions he draws are at his own risk. I do not regard B>it as important the way West described "his problem" is different to my B>analysis of the problem - it is enough for me that the situation is B>such that genuine thought is required. B>Tim West-Meads B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 12:18:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:18:25 +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 MAA02859 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:18:10 +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 10XFFa-000LBL-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:18:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 02:13:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 12:11 PM 4/13/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >>The ethical player will say, "Sorry, I don't have a problem." If that >>gives away the holding, too bad. This has always been the policy after >>inadvertently hesitating before playing a singleton, and it should be >>employed whenever a hesitation sends the wrong message. >> >>Of course, if declarer doesn't believe you, that's not your fault. >>Playing against an expert from San Francisco at the 1975 St. Louis NABC, >>I had an established suit defending a notrump contract, but no entry. I >>took some time thinking about how I should discard in order to persuade >>declarer that I could be thrown in and endplayed. Then I realized that >>the thinking was bound to give declarer a false picture, so I said, >>"Sorry, I have no problem," which was true in a way. He smiled and said >>with a wink, "That's okay, Marv," and threw me in instead of >>successfully finessing. After I took all the tricks but one, he was very >>unhappy to learn that I did indeed have no problem. >> >I have often wondered about this exact situation. Does the satement "Sorry, >I don't have a problem" when your behavior clearly suggests otherwise, >really protect you from the consequences of a misleading huddle? In fact, >you did have a problem, and declarer "correctly" read your huddle as >suggesting a problem, even if he misguessed about the nature of that >problem. If we apply the "could have known" standard to your hesitation, we >will adjust against you here, notwithstanding your comment. Or so it seems >to me, anyway. Of course it is acceptable. You have told the oppos you do not have a problem: now they cannot be misled into thinking you did have a problem. If, in fact, you do have a problem, then we deal with you in a very serious way. You seem to be suggesting that we should deal with all people as though they are cheats: that is not the way forward. People who do not have a problem tell their oppos so and the game carries on. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 13:40:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:40:18 +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 NAA03097 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:40:05 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.75]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id XAA03403; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:35:19 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <004a01be861f$b9564720$4d6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <002501be8573$7690ffe0$4f6199d0@john> Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:31:09 -0300 Organization: Central American & Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson | I do not understand this, for two reasons. | | [1] What Law requires a player to do this? | [2] From KQ9, the K *is* the 'honest' card. | | The Law requires you not to play out of tempo without a demonstrable | bridge reason. It does not say you may not false-card after a tank. What kind of game would we be playing if everyone could tank in deciding which falsecard to make. In the two situations given, the defender had absolutely no problem as to whether they were going to influence the trick in progress. They had no bridge decision to make and also knew they had to win the current trick. Tanking to decide whether to play the 'honest' King (IMO the Queen is the honest card as you are winning the trick with the lowest possible card) is a clear violation of ethics and the sense of fair play. If we cannot find a 'Law' to support this position, the game is in trouble. Enough said. John From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 13:40:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:40:48 +1000 Received: from www.networksgy.com (www.networksgy.com [208.130.114.177]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03105 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:40:24 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.75]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id XAA03406; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:35:22 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit><004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> Subject: Re: Information for declarer Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:37:19 -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 David Stevenson wrote: | Many defenders do not lead the ace and king from different holdings. | How can they write an agreement down when they have no such agreement? | | It is possible to play, and I have played, that Ace asks for count, | and King asks for attitude. You lead whichever from AK seems suitable | in view of the full hand and the bidding. | | If asked to write down what holding you lead them from, you would | correctly write down: | | A from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) | K from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) | | Full disclosure says that you must tell your opponents all your | agreements. It does not mean that you have to invent agreements that | you do not have because the opponents wish you to play their way. So if the declarer asked for further clarification, that is all you could do. If you have had experience with that partner, that should be made known as well. Simply stating that the Ace asks for attitude and King for count may not be enough for the declarer. A little further explanation would seem to make the declarer a little more knowledgable about your partnership tendencies. Is there something wrong with full disclosure ? John From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 13:43:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:43:56 +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 NAA03131 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:43:50 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveiom.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.75.22]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA14084 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:41:40 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:13 AM 4/14/99 +0100, David S wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 12:11 PM 4/13/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >>>The ethical player will say, "Sorry, I don't have a problem." If that >>>gives away the holding, too bad. This has always been the policy after >>>inadvertently hesitating before playing a singleton, and it should be >>>employed whenever a hesitation sends the wrong message. >>> >>>Of course, if declarer doesn't believe you, that's not your fault. >>>Playing against an expert from San Francisco at the 1975 St. Louis NABC, >>>I had an established suit defending a notrump contract, but no entry. I >>>took some time thinking about how I should discard in order to persuade >>>declarer that I could be thrown in and endplayed. Then I realized that >>>the thinking was bound to give declarer a false picture, so I said, >>>"Sorry, I have no problem," which was true in a way. He smiled and said >>>with a wink, "That's okay, Marv," and threw me in instead of >>>successfully finessing. After I took all the tricks but one, he was very >>>unhappy to learn that I did indeed have no problem. >>> >>I have often wondered about this exact situation. Does the satement "Sorry, >>I don't have a problem" when your behavior clearly suggests otherwise, >>really protect you from the consequences of a misleading huddle? In fact, >>you did have a problem, and declarer "correctly" read your huddle as >>suggesting a problem, even if he misguessed about the nature of that >>problem. If we apply the "could have known" standard to your hesitation, we >>will adjust against you here, notwithstanding your comment. Or so it seems >>to me, anyway. > > Of course it is acceptable. You have told the oppos you do not have a >problem: now they cannot be misled into thinking you did have a problem. >If, in fact, you do have a problem, then we deal with you in a very >serious way. > Really? Under the authority of which law? I have no wish to revive the dead horse about lying, but it seems like there is no effective way to enforce this notion against a player who insists that his prolonged hesitation was only a meditation on the morning's crossword puzzle. > You seem to be suggesting that we should deal with all people as >though they are cheats: that is not the way forward. People who do not >have a problem tell their oppos so and the game carries on. No, I don't want to deal with everyone as if they are cheats. I do wish to invoke the authority of L73F2 to protect against a player who intentionally pauses to create a misleading impression of a problem. I find no mention in that Law of any means by which such a player can indemnify himself against the provisions of that Law by a gratuitous remark (such as "Sorry, no problem"). In fact, the situation is reminiscent in some ways of our recent lengthy thread about UI Insurance. As in that case, a player wishes to invoke an extra-legal procedure, in the form of a comment to the opponents, to protect himself against the consequences of a potential irregularity. The Laws do not authorize such a procedure, and I don't see why we should endorse it in the absence of legal backing. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 13:55:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:55:19 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA03187 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:55:11 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial63.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.63]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA08004; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:53:57 -0400 To: Tim West-Meads From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 5:09 PM -0400 4/13/99, Tim West-Meads wrote: >I seem to recall a piece of advice (very good advice IMO, possibly a Bols >tip) along the lines of "When you have a choice of plays don't make a play >until you know what you are going to do next." > >I had always understood that adjustments for inadvertent hesitations never >applied if the hesitator had a genuine problem - which it seems to me that >he did in this case. "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -- [Francisco D'Anconia], Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged Here West has stated that he had no choice of plays, so the tip is not relevant. On a second reading I think the tip, as you've phrased it, may (like some of the Laws!) be ambiguous enough that it can be misunderstood. I believe the choice referred to must be the first of a sequence of plays. In any case, if the tip contravenes the Law, the Law is trump! As a separate matter, no one has explained to me what declarer thought West was thinking about before he won the CQ, or (which amounts to the same thing) why the hesitation made the losing line more attractive than it would have been otherwise. - Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 16:27:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA03449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:27:05 +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 QAA03444 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:26:54 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA17134 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005901be863f$bad2ee80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:24:54 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I have often wondered about this exact situation. Does the statement "Sorry, > I don't have a problem" when your behavior clearly suggests otherwise, > really protect you from the consequences of a misleading huddle? In fact, > you did have a problem, and declarer "correctly" read your huddle as > suggesting a problem, even if he misguessed about the nature of that > problem. If we apply the "could have known" standard to your hesitation, we > will adjust against you here, notwithstanding your comment. Or so it seems > to me, anyway. > I did not have the problem declarer was going to assume I had. Geez, I can't win. If I had said nothing, you adjust against me, and if I say something, you adjust against me. I guess you expect me to say, "I have a problem figuring out how to discard in order to fool you into thinking I have something that I don't have." Any competent declarer would realize my words gave away that I didn't have a potential entry, just as any competent declarer knows I don't have the queen if I say "no problem" when accidentally hesitating on his lead of the jack. If he thinks I'm lying in either situation, he deserves what he gets. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 18:02:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:02:20 +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 SAA03601 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:02:15 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.233]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990414080327.GVVY5752963.mta2-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:03:27 +1200 Message-ID: <3715568C.44C0@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:01:32 -0700 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: Revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? Tough. Law 72A4 Declarer believed he was taking most advantagous course and was wrong. Asking for ruling under law 64C is irrelevant in that declarer made a decision which was wrong not that the law insufficently compensated him he did it to himself. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 18:17:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:17:38 +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 SAA03701 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:17:33 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME ([202.27.177.42]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990414081846.GYCJ5752963.mta2-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:18:46 +1200 Message-ID: <37155A26.E24@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:16:54 -0700 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: Cunning use of law Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all Had a n interesting one last night Declarer is in 4NT (bidding misunderstanding as should have been in 4H). Trick seven is taken by LHO who leads a small diamond. Declarer has AJ in hand but for some strange reason plays a small heart which he thought was trumps and therefore thought he took the trick. He immediately leads SK thus establishing revoke. I'm called and explain it is established and now has lead out of turn. LHO does not accept so card returns to hand as declarer cannot have penalty card. LHO now leads a diamond which is taken in dummy and he uses hearts in dummy to discard DAJ from hand then crossing to spade to take rest of tricks.Penalty is transfer of one trick not two. Good use of law by declarer to minimze penalty? Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 19:48:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 19:48:49 +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 TAA04145 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 19:48:40 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob (dialup-012.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.204]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA94650 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:47:57 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <00d501be865c$235a8280$cc307dc2@tsvecfob> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Law25A and L45C4B Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:49:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D2_01BE8664.839CDE60" 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_00D2_01BE8664.839CDE60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Perhaps David might clarify further please: =20 > The reference in the Laws to "without pause for thought" gives an >additional test as to whether a call/play may be changed. It may not = be >changed if it is not inadvertent, but even if inadvertent it may not be >changed if there is a pause for thought > If I clearly intend to bid 4H and inadvertantly pull the 4S card why = would a pause for thought prohibit me from changing my call without = penalty? =20 What is wrong with the idea that the reference to 'pause for thought' is = a further test of inadvertancy checking that no change of mind has = occurred? =20 Regards, Fearghal =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01BE8664.839CDE60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Perhaps David = might clarify=20 further please:
 
>  The reference in the Laws to "without pause for=20 thought" gives an
>additional test as to whether a call/play = may be=20 changed.  It may not be
>changed if it is not inadvertent, = but even=20 if inadvertent it may not be
>changed if there is a pause for=20 thought
>
 
If I clearly intend to bid 4H and inadvertantly pull = the 4S=20 card why would a pause for thought prohibit me from changing my call = without=20 penalty?
 
What is wrong with the idea that the reference to = 'pause for=20 thought' is a further test of inadvertancy checking that no change of = mind has=20 occurred?
 
Regards,
 
Fearghal
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00D2_01BE8664.839CDE60-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 21:24:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:24:49 +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 VAA04526 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:24:42 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-121.uunet.be [194.7.13.121]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12322 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:24:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37146E00.972EEBA0@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:29:20 +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: Cunning use of law References: <37155A26.E24@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B A Small wrote: > > Hi all > > Had a n interesting one last night > > then crossing to spade to take rest of tricks.Penalty is transfer of one > trick not two. Good use of law by declarer to minimze penalty? > Yes, and exactly the reason why the rule concerning the penalty should be explained to the player before play goes on ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 21:24:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:24:58 +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 VAA04533 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:24:52 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-121.uunet.be [194.7.13.121]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12341 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:24:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37147073.1B246E68@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:39:47 +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: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <9904132009.0SB8702@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > > > I am not so quick to say that bridge problems include such things as > figuring out how to commit an illegal deception. Whether a player knows > that a situation is tempo sensitive or not, an improper deception can be the > basis for an appropriate adjusted score. > One comment : a _legal_ deception. Pausing to reflect on which card would best deceive declarer is IMO not improper. The player has a bridge reason for thinking. This is a very tricky subject indeed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 14 22:34:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:34:16 +1000 Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04783 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:34:09 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n07.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.7]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA05060 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:33:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990414082821.00831560@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:28:21 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <005901be863f$bad2ee80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:24 PM 4/13/99 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >I did not have the problem declarer was going to assume I had. Geez, I >can't win. If I had said nothing, you adjust against me, and if I say >something, you adjust against me. Of course you can win: don't break tempo. >I guess you expect me to say, "I have >a problem figuring out how to discard in order to fool you into thinking >I have something that I don't have." > > Any competent declarer would realize my words gave away that I didn't >have a potential entry, just as any competent declarer knows I don't >have the queen if I say "no problem" when accidentally hesitating on his >lead of the jack. If he thinks I'm lying in either situation, he >deserves what he gets. One problem with remarks such as this is that they give the same information which declarer receives to partner as well. I once (and only once) played with someone who said "sorry, I have no problem" 3 or 4 times during a two session event. Everytime he had a singleton. It was a useful way to convey that information to me. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 00:44:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:44:39 +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 AAA07664 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:44:31 +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 KAA11281 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:42:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990414104653.0068a864@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:46:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Revoke In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:03 PM 4/12/99 +0100, David wrote: > Kxxxx W S N E > x > xxx 1NT >QJx Qxxx A10x 2H 3H P 3NT >Jx Qxx AP >AKQxx J10xx >Jxx xx A10x Opening lead: Hx > AK10xxxx > x Matchpoints > Kxx > > Declarer wins the opening heart lead, counts eight tricks, or ten with >a successful spade finesse. Before taking the finesses he cashes a few >diamonds: North fails to follow to the second, but follows to the third, >establishing the revoke. The TD is called, explains the situation, >which is that East-West will get one trick transferred to them at the >end of the hand. Declarer does not take the spade finesse, but takes >his eight tricks, and one is transferred, giving him nine tricks. > > This is a bottom! Unlucky! > > Declarer would like a ruling under L64C: comments? David has already given the appropriate comment: "Unlucky!" Equity was sufficiently served when declarer's 8-or-10-trick decision was turned by the revoke into a 9-or-11 trick decision. It does not further require that he be assumed to make the winning decision. The revoke gave him the opportunity to make a "safety play" for his contract rather than try for overtricks, and he chose to do so. As often happens when such safety plays are chosen, the overtricks could have been made, and declarer got a bad score at matchpoints. I very much doubt that had he been in 2NT or 4NT and had chosen to take the nine tricks that anyone would consider awarding him 11 tricks; why should they here? I interpret L64C as applying in a fairly narrow context, one in which the revoke reduces the NO's trick-taking potential by more than the number of "penalty" tricks specified by L64A or L64B (as, in the classic example, by leaving the revoker with a crucial stopper in the suit of the revoke). Here the L64A penalty, when applied, increased declarer's trick-taking potential (regardless of which line he chose), so L64C does not come into play. 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 Apr 15 00:45:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:45:54 +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 AAA07679 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:45:47 +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 10XQuz-0004UH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:45:33 +0000 Message-ID: <9mOeYoAxIIF3EwJ0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:55:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Information for declarer References: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> In-Reply-To: <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >| Many defenders do not lead the ace and king from different holdings. >| How can they write an agreement down when they have no such agreement? >| >| It is possible to play, and I have played, that Ace asks for count, >| and King asks for attitude. You lead whichever from AK seems suitable >| in view of the full hand and the bidding. >| >| If asked to write down what holding you lead them from, you would >| correctly write down: >| >| A from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) >| K from AK(Q)(J)(x)(x)(x) >| >| Full disclosure says that you must tell your opponents all your >| agreements. It does not mean that you have to invent agreements that >| you do not have because the opponents wish you to play their way. >So if the declarer asked for further clarification, that is all you could >do. If you have had experience with >that partner, that should be made known as well. Simply stating that the >Ace asks for attitude and King >for count may not be enough for the declarer. A little further explanation >would seem to make the >declarer a little more knowledgable about your partnership tendencies. Is >there something wrong with >full disclosure ? No, but it was not full disclosure that was being asked for. It was disclosure in a precise way that did not accord with the defenders' system, namely a specification of holdings from which one would be played and not the other. If you are playing a weak no-trump, I do not see it as violating full disclosure if you refuse to give answers as to your responses to a strong no-trump: why should you tell the opponents something you are not playing? Peter Newman wrote: >Declarer plays 4S and receives the lead of the HA. >He enquires about the leads and is told: >"Ace lead is for attitude, King lead is for count. On an Ace lead, > high is encouraging" > >Declarer felt this was inadequate - and wished to know what honour > holdings were promised by an Ace lead vs. a King lead. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 00:45:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:45:59 +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 AAA07678 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:45:47 +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 10XQuz-000Kx3-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:45:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:07:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law25A and L45C4B References: <00d501be865c$235a8280$cc307dc2@tsvecfob> In-Reply-To: <00d501be865c$235a8280$cc307dc2@tsvecfob> 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 Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > =A0 > Perhaps David might clarify further please: > =A0 > >=A0 The reference in the Laws to "without pause for thought" gives=20 > an > >additional test as to whether a call/play may be changed.=A0 It may=20 > not be > >changed if it is not inadvertent, but even if inadvertent it may=20 > not be > >changed if there is a pause for thought > > > =A0 > If I clearly intend to bid 4H and inadvertantly pull the 4S card=20 > why would a pause for thought prohibit me from changing my call=20 > without penalty? I have no idea. I do not know why the lawmakers put this in. I presume it was a matter of practicality. > What is wrong with the idea that the reference to 'pause for=20 > thought' is a further test of inadvertancy checking that no change=20 > of mind has occurred? It is not what the Law says. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 00:46:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:46:03 +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 AAA07676 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:45:42 +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 10XQuz-000Kx2-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 14:45:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 13:05:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 02:13 AM 4/14/99 +0100, David S wrote: >>Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>>At 12:11 PM 4/13/99 -0700, Marv wrote: >>>>The ethical player will say, "Sorry, I don't have a problem." If that >>>>gives away the holding, too bad. This has always been the policy after >>>>inadvertently hesitating before playing a singleton, and it should be >>>>employed whenever a hesitation sends the wrong message. >>>> >>>>Of course, if declarer doesn't believe you, that's not your fault. >>>>Playing against an expert from San Francisco at the 1975 St. Louis NABC, >>>>I had an established suit defending a notrump contract, but no entry. I >>>>took some time thinking about how I should discard in order to persuade >>>>declarer that I could be thrown in and endplayed. Then I realized that >>>>the thinking was bound to give declarer a false picture, so I said, >>>>"Sorry, I have no problem," which was true in a way. He smiled and said >>>>with a wink, "That's okay, Marv," and threw me in instead of >>>>successfully finessing. After I took all the tricks but one, he was very >>>>unhappy to learn that I did indeed have no problem. >>>I have often wondered about this exact situation. Does the satement "Sorry, >>>I don't have a problem" when your behavior clearly suggests otherwise, >>>really protect you from the consequences of a misleading huddle? In fact, >>>you did have a problem, and declarer "correctly" read your huddle as >>>suggesting a problem, even if he misguessed about the nature of that >>>problem. If we apply the "could have known" standard to your hesitation, we >>>will adjust against you here, notwithstanding your comment. Or so it seems >>>to me, anyway. >> Of course it is acceptable. You have told the oppos you do not have a >>problem: now they cannot be misled into thinking you did have a problem. >>If, in fact, you do have a problem, then we deal with you in a very >>serious way. >Really? Under the authority of which law? I have no wish to revive the dead >horse about lying, but it seems like there is no effective way to enforce >this notion against a player who insists that his prolonged hesitation was >only a meditation on the morning's crossword puzzle. >> You seem to be suggesting that we should deal with all people as >>though they are cheats: that is not the way forward. People who do not >>have a problem tell their oppos so and the game carries on. >No, I don't want to deal with everyone as if they are cheats. I do wish to >invoke the authority of L73F2 to protect against a player who intentionally >pauses to create a misleading impression of a problem. I find no mention in >that Law of any means by which such a player can indemnify himself against >the provisions of that Law by a gratuitous remark (such as "Sorry, no >problem"). L73D1 says ".... However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. ...." Players are required to be particularly careful in these positions, and are required to avoid misleading opponents. So, ethical players avoid misleading opponents by letting opponents know if an apparent think was unintentional - and you want to punish them for it! As to the legalities, a player who makes such a disclaimer, apart from following published commentary on ethics over many years, is following the dictates of L73D1. If he does not issue such a disclaimer then he has not taken adequate care not to mislead. I still cannot see what you find abhorrent in this procedure. It works well, reduces problems, and has no apparent downside: why do you want to increase ethical problems? >In fact, the situation is reminiscent in some ways of our recent lengthy >thread about UI Insurance. As in that case, a player wishes to invoke an >extra-legal procedure, in the form of a comment to the opponents, to >protect himself against the consequences of a potential irregularity. The >Laws do not authorize such a procedure, and I don't see why we should >endorse it in the absence of legal backing. It is not extra-legal: it is a requirement of the Law. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 00:57:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:57:51 +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 AAA07749 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:57:44 +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 JAA29930 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:57:39 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DYYC00N Wed, 14 Apr 99 09:56:41 Message-ID: <9904140956.0DYYC00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 99 09:56:41 Subject: LAW 25A AND L45C4B To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Several years ago at unfavorable vulnerability I picked up a hand something like this: Jx-AJT9xx-KT8-Qx that I considered whether to overcall 1H or 2H. I quickly resolved to overcall 1H and thought nothing more about it. All the while LHO was pontificating about some meaningless dribble. Dealer, my partner, passed and RHO went into a long tank and emerged with 1D. I promptly bid 1S 'as I had decided almost 2 minutes before'. LHO went into the tank and emerged with 1N. CHO thought for a few seconds and bid 2S. I thought this was interesting since booth opponents with their huddles have announced strong hands and power in spades as well, so partner must have an interesting hand. I then looked at my hand so as to plan the rest of the auction. P-1D-1S-1N-2S- At this time there was the realization that I had not carried out my plan to overcall 1H and there was a tremendous rush of blood. I believe that this is what DWS refers to as shock which makes the no pause for thought clock start some several seconds later, which in turn makes the pause meet the test for changing the call without pause for thought. Clearly, the 1S call was intended when it was made- albeit, it was a mistake of the mind induced by the improper behavior of the opponents and the huddles- I merely had forgotten what I had intended to do. Nevertheless, I saw the bid come out of the box and on the table and did nothing to fix it. Now consider further. Every time that I do pull out a bidding card that does not match what I had intended to bid, as soon as the card can be seen [as it clears the cards in the box] I always say 'Not this' and immediately fix it. There is no question that some mechanical error has taken place, no UI, and no chance for the opponent to make any call. I contend that the shock that DWS talks about is actually the result of thinking which has concluded that the player had intended to make their play, albeit for mistaken motivations, and has just realized that what they did was stupid on a grand scale. If the play were truly inadvertent, there would be no shock. The head would be clear and able to respond within the criteria for no pause for thought, and would do so. If the player did not do so, then an explanation would be that they had a question within themselves whether their play really was inadvertent, and to resolve would require thought. And consider further. The laws call upon all players to pay adequate attention to the game. If a play were truly inadvertent, a player would only have to see [remember] their action and compare it to what they had intended to determine that they did not match. In other words, no outside stimuli from the opponent's actions would be needed to ascertain the inadvertency. For instance, a player using bidding boxes is called upon to see their call as it is placed on the table. It is at this point that they are able to compare what they have done with what have intended to do. They have all the information that they need. To take any amount of time to initiate a change violates the criteria of no pause for thought. There are only two sets of circumstances [one really] that conforms to meeting the test of no pause for thought up until partner has acted: [1] LHO has acted so quickly and before the physical act has been completed that the player [a] had no time to fix the inadvertency and/or [b] was distracted by the player's haste. And [2] an external disturbance beyond the control of the player's side has caused such a distraction that the inadvertency would not be noticed when it occurred. Such disturbances include talking by the opponents, a fight at another table, someone yelling 'FIRE', etc. Such things would meet the criteria for attempt to change. Roger Pewick B>Grant wrote: B>> But what exactly is a 'pause for thought', then? This has come B>up >before, but since we're in clarifying mode let's clarify. B>> Suppose I call for a spade from dummy when I really meant a B>club. B>>After making the call: B>> a) I pause in shock and confusion when I see the 'wrong' card B>>being played. B>The pause for thought is from the realisation that the wrong card has B>been played. This is pre-realisation shock! B>> b) I pause and think 'why on earth is dummy playing a spade???' B>Same answer. B>> c) I pause and think 'dummy played the wrong card--what am I B>>supposed to do now?' B>Well, this is in theory more tricky. You have realised the card is B>wrong. In theory no pause for thought is allowed now. I don't really B>think this is constructive thought, and we interpret this bit of the law B>generously, so we allow a little bit of this - so long as soon you B>surface and try to change the card. B>> d) I don't notice the card that has been played, and think B>'after >I win this club trick I'll run my diamonds, pitching hearts from B>dummy, >and then I'll...hey, why is RHO playing a spade?' B>The pause for thought is from the realisation that the wrong card has B>been played. This is pre-realisation shock! B>> e) I pause and think 'will the attractive lady to my left think B>I'm >a bigger idiot if I go ahead and play a spade here and go down in a B>>ironclad contract, or if I admit I misspoke and ask to change to a B>club?' B>Same sort of answer as (c). B>> I suspect in the ACBL most TDs will allow the change in all five B>>cases. Would such ruling be incorrect? If all 5 of these cases are B>>acceptable changes under L45c4b, could you give us some examples of the B>>kinds of cases where we should rule that, although the call/designation B>>was clearly inadvertant, and no change of mind has occurred, there has B>>still been a pause for thought? B>a, b and d are not pauses for thought after the realisation, and the B>card may be changed. c and e are not quite the same. However, with a B>generous approach to this, I doubt that c or e would stop us allowing B>the change so long as they were very short. B>It is more a matter of length of time. Once the player has realised B>that the wrong thing has occurred, then he has a short time to try and B>make a change: after that the pause for thought kicks in. In practice, B>the pause for thought is very rare, and I can only remember one case in B>the last year where the change should have been disallowed: Vancouver B>#5! B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 00:58:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:58:03 +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 AAA07757 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:57:57 +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 JAA29932 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:57:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DZ2F00P Wed, 14 Apr 99 09:56:50 Message-ID: <9904140956.0DZ2F00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 99 09:56:50 Subject: LAW 73D-F To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The law says that it is improper to to deceive by varying tempo. If a variation in tempo deceives, the deception is an illegal deception. Roger Pewick B>r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: B>> B>> B>> B>> I am not so quick to say that bridge problems include such things as B>> figuring out how to commit an illegal deception. Whether a player B>knows > that a situation is tempo sensitive or not, an improper B>deception can be the > basis for an appropriate adjusted score. B>> B>One comment : a _legal_ deception. B>Pausing to reflect on which card would best deceive declarer B>is IMO not improper. B>The player has a bridge reason for thinking. B>This is a very tricky subject indeed. B>-- B>Herman DE WAEL B>Antwerpen Belgium B>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 01:19:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:19:43 +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 BAA07855 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:19:34 +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 LAA14411 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990414112204.006e8e78@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:22:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:58 PM 4/12/99 -0400, Don wrote: >The diamond lead ran to the J, and West won the first round of hearts and >switched to the club 3, to the K and A. South drew the remaining trumps, >then cashed the diamonds, discarding a club, and led a club in this >position: > > J10 > KQ65 > - > 10 >Q853 A74 >- - >- Q98 >QJ7 5 > K96 > J > - > 842 > >After a prolonged hesitation, West won the club Q and continued with the 7. >South ruffed in dummy, led a spade, and misguessed, running it to the Q for >down 1. > >Declarer now requested a ruling, saying that the long hesitation before >West won the club queen had convinced him that East must have the club J. >West said that when the club was led to trick 7, his first conclusion was >that he must win the club Q (since winning with the J would mark him with >the Q), and the rest of the time was spent considering what he should do >after winning the Q, and that he had every right to this time for >consideration. Further, West pointed out that in his defensive methods, >"2nd and 4th" leads were used, so that from a holding of Q73, his first >club lead would have been the 7, not the 3; thus South should have got the >position right in any case. South countered that at the point of decision, >he knew that either West's play of the Q or West's original club lead was a >falsecard, and he assumed it was the lead because of the long hesitation. >After a prompt win of the Q, he would certainly have let the continuation >of the 7 run to his 8, because of the defenders' lead agreements. > >How would you rule? Result stands. We had a long thread in which I argued, as I continue to do, that the legalese weasel-wording of L73F2 should not lull us into interpreting it so that it applies to every tempo break ever committed. Bridge books for beginners frequently advise that one not win a trick on defense until one has figured out what to lead to the next trick. I do not accept that the authors who proffer this advice are advising their readers to break the law. Although West knows at his turn that he will win the trick, he has a real problem about what to play next; in addition, it is possible that his decision as to what to play next might affect his decision whether to win with the Q or the J. In my book, that consitutes a "demonstrable bridge reason" for his huddle. But even if we were to reject the premise that "thinking ahead" can justify a huddle -- i.e. accept the alternative interpretation that you may not huddle when you know what card you are going to play -- wouldn't that make it even clearer that the result should stand? How would we rule if West had started with Q73, South had chosen to run the 7 to the 8 and had lost to the J, and then asked for protection on the grounds that he was entitled to assume from West's huddle before winning the Q, when it was clear that he was going to take the trick, that he must hold the J? That sounds to me like at least as good a case as the one made by South here. 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 Apr 15 01:54:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:54:45 +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 BAA08027 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:54:37 +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 LAA17104 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:52:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990414115700.006d7ae8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:57:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Information for declarer In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:38 PM 4/13/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >Declarer plays 4S and receives the lead of the HA. >He enquires about the leads and is told: >"Ace lead is for attitude, King lead is for count. On an Ace lead, high is >encouraging" > >Declarer felt this was inadequate - and wished to know what honour holdings >were promised by an Ace lead vs. a King lead. > >The defenders felt that they had given their full system understandings >(not a well established partnership, but both players of expert standard). > >What are defender's responsibilities? >What are the laws? >What should the director do in such circumstances? > >[Even comments about the role of active ethics in all this would be >interesting and appreciated.] The defenders must reveal (a) their explicit agreements, which they clearly have done, and (b) their understandings from experience. When declarer asked about specific holdings, he was presumably expecting an answer along the lines of "we normally, but with no explicit guarantee, lead the A from (whatever), the K from (whatever else), and are likely to lead either from (whatever is left)". Defenders are required to provide such an answer if their understanding is based on partnership experience, but need not do so if there is no such experience; the TD's job is to make that determination. When they have shared experiences not gathered as a partnership such that they could answer appropriately but only on the basis of their general bridge knowledge and understanding, they are not obligated to do so. This is where "active ethics" comes in: It might be considered "ethically appropriate", especially against weaker opponents, even though not required, to provide such an answer anyhow, although if one chooses to do so, one must make it clear that that's what you're doing (i.e. that you are describing your conclusions from general bridge knowledge and not describing a partnership understanding). Personally, I will ask, i.e. say something like, "We have no partnership understanding, but if you want me to I will speculate about what he might do with various holdings", and, if they take me up on it, preface my explanation with, "Remember, there's no guarantee whatsoever that partner is on the same wavelength." 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 Apr 15 02:34:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:34:41 +1000 Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08283 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:34:35 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n07.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.7]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA22326 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:34:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990414122853.008359d0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:28:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Information for declarer In-Reply-To: <9mOeYoAxIIF3EwJ0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:55 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > If you are playing a weak no-trump, I do not see it as violating full >disclosure if you refuse to give answers as to your responses to a >strong no-trump: why should you tell the opponents something you are not >playing? Suppose, however, that an opponent asked you if you could hold a five card major and you tell them that you could. Without specific discussion with your partner, is it a matter of general bridge knowledge what types of hands might be opened 1NT despite holding a five card major, or is this something that must be explained to the opponents? I think this is nearer the issue involving the lead question. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 02:44:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:44:42 +1000 Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08318 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:44:36 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n07.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.7]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id MAA22915 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990414123854.00818350@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:38:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I still cannot see what you find abhorrent in this procedure. It >works well, reduces problems, and has no apparent downside: why do you >want to increase ethical problems? Except that it also informs partner. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 03:46:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 03:46:19 +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 DAA08651 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 03:46:13 +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 <19990414174606.EABK6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:46:06 -0700 Message-ID: <3714D56E.53370B62@home.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:50:38 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception References: <01be85ac$0667fd20$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > No. By split score what I meant was that if the award as per Law 12C2 > produced a score which was gross then the AC may consider that > declarer > might without the infraction "get it right" a certain percentage of > the > time, and may "get it wrong" a certain percentage of the time then the > calculation of matchpoints would be made to reflect this. For > instance, if > the running of the club return to the eight was so much against the > probability of it being succesful that the field was not "getting it > right" > then a score in matchpoints equivalent to 70/40 may be awarded, rather > than > +/- 420 wich may be 100% of available points to NOs. > > (Now I expect DWS and JP to tell me that I do not understand split > scoring.) Add me to that list :-) A "split" score is simply a "non balancing" score. It can be awarded either under L12C1 or L12C2. If *some* score can be determined you are forced to use C2. If you feel that does not create "equity" you can in some jurisdictions apply C3. What you can *not* do is apply a "split" score under *C1*, just because you feel it is difficult to do under C2. At least that is how I interpret the last sentence of C2, but maybe it can be interpreted differently? I'm pretty sure it was at least *intended* my way, since if you can do what Anne proposes then L12C3 would be virtually superfluous! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 04:21:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 04:21:06 +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 EAA08836 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 04:20:58 +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 <19990414182052.EKBM6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:20:52 -0700 Message-ID: <3714DD94.9D7E69BC@home.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:25:24 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F References: <9904140956.0DZ2F00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > The law says that it is improper to to deceive by varying tempo. If a > variation in tempo deceives, the deception is an illegal deception. A=>B isn't neccessarily equal to B=>A. *Intent* is what counts. Just because your opponent "was deceived" doesn't give automatic redress. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 05:17:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:17:24 +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 FAA09013 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:17:17 +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 <19990414191711.FATV6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:17:11 -0700 Message-ID: <3714EAC7.577C1C6B@home.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:21:43 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Information for declarer References: <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> <3.0.5.32.19990414122853.008359d0@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > Suppose, however, that an opponent asked you if you could hold a five > card > major and you tell them that you could. Without specific discussion > with > your partner, is it a matter of general bridge knowledge what types of > hands might be opened 1NT despite holding a five card major, or is > this > something that must be explained to the opponents? I think this is fairly simple: If you have discussed with pard which types qualify and which don't, you share this info with opponents. If you haven't, you should not advise opponents of what you feel might be best. Of course, if you have enough "partnership experience" about which hands are likely to qualify, you consider that as if "discussed". In my favourite partnership we have agreed to open 1NT (15-17) on all hands presenting a rebid-problem if opened 1M. We tell the opponents this. We also tell them this results in 90+% of balanced 5cM hands with 15-17 hcp being opened 1NT. I *don't* think we need to point out to them that this does *not* mean 90% of our 1NT openings contain a 5 cd Major! PS: It is interesting to note differences in these percentages for a 12-14 NT as well as for a 2/1 system (in both cases fewer hands would have those rebid-problems when opened 1M). Some differences also occur between H and S as the 5cM, in a 2/1 context. Although these tendencies are in a sense "general bridge-knowledge", it might not be immediately obvious to those never opening 1NT with a 5cM, nor to those playing the opposite NT-range. So how should one disclose? In a sense the present method of saying 1NT never/sometimes/frequently/often contain a 5cM might not be the most appropriate, since "sometimes" might mean a different thing to a 4cM player than to a 2/1 player, but maybe it is the most practical? Sorry to go so far off topic :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 05:25:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:25:50 +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 FAA09048 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:25:40 +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 PAA18301 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA01676 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:25:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:25:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904141925.PAA01676@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > The law says that it is improper to to deceive by varying tempo. If a > > variation in tempo deceives, the deception is an illegal deception. > From: Jan Kamras > A=>B isn't neccessarily equal to B=>A. Yes. > *Intent* is what counts. Oh, Jan, noooo! Were you writing in great haste? What counts are the very specific provisions in L73F2: 1) existence of some action 2) innocent player 3) false inference drawn 4) no demonstrable bridge reason 5) could have known and of course damage resulting, although it isn't explicitly mentioned in L73F2, it must come in L12C if nowhere else. (Are the above all the relevant factors, or have I missed something?) Intent doesn't come into score adjustment at all. If you consider intent to be present, you ought to initiate C&E action. > Just because your opponent "was deceived" > doesn't give automatic redress. Yes; number 3 alone isn't enough. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 05:27:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:27:35 +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 FAA09071 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:27:29 +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; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:27:23 +0100 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 UAA12743 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:25:37 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F In-Reply-To: <9904140956.0DZ2F00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:22:54 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 > The law says that it is improper to to deceive by varying tempo. If a > variation in tempo deceives, the deception is an illegal deception. > > Roger Pewick No, the Laws say it's improper to *attempt* to deceive by varying tempo. In the book "Dormer on Deduction", Dr.Watson tells Sherlock Holmes about a hand he defended against Moriarty. In a trump contract, Moriarty had singleton ace in the side-suit that was led, with QTxx in dummy. He wanted to encourage a continuation, so wanted to (a) play the Q if RHO had the K, and (b) play the T if RHO had the J, so that the defence might think they had a trick to cash in this suit when they regained the lead. He thought for a long time about which was more likely, and got it right. Dr.Watson was duly deceived, and was highly indignant, but Holmes persuaded him that on this occasion Moriarty had done nothing wrong. This is probably the most subtle ethical point I've seen discussed in a bridge book. Does anybody here think Holmes was wrong? [Ignore the fact that this was at trick one, so Moriarty was entitled to think before playing from dummy anyway.] Jeremy. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 05:43:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA09135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:43:55 +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 FAA09130 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 05:43:49 +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 <19990414194343.FIDQ6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:43:43 -0700 Message-ID: <3714F100.28C7A577@home.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:48:16 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Information for declarer References: <3.0.1.32.19990414115700.006d7ae8@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We should not forget that "general bridge-knowledge" is a somewhat flexible expression, even within the same peer-group. Even to a reasonably competent player certain deductions may be less obvious when he always played "K from AKx" or whatever. There is also a substantial following for the (quite sensible, imo) method of differentiating between NT and suit-contracts, using A asks attitude, K asks count (or unblock) vs NT only. Such players might not immediately see in which situations one would use it also vs suit-contracts. When "bridge-knowledge" of a certain situation varies depending on familiarity with a certain method, it may be argued that it is no longer "general". Bridge is a timed event, so it is not fair that an opponent must work out certain deductions which are intuitively/immediately obvious to those using the method. Similar considerations can be made for weak NT players and/or Acol players in the US, or 5cM players in the UK. Certain consequences of using those methods can be worked out and/or are available to anyone based on "bridge-knowledge", but it would take substantial effort for many of the opposite pursuation while being intuitively assumed by the users. I think the users should volunteer info abt such inferences whenever they may be material to the situation at hand. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 06:23:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA09280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:23:25 +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 GAA09275 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:23:18 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveigt.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.29]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18138 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990414162109.006e7398@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 16:21:09 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:05 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David S wrote: > I still cannot see what you find abhorrent in this procedure. It >works well, reduces problems, and has no apparent downside: why do you >want to increase ethical problems? > Abhorrent is much too strong a word. I raised the issue because I have a concern. I don't think it's a silly one, and I do find a potential downside. Consider two cases: 1) Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then appears to change his mind and finally follows low. Declarer lets the J ride and it loses. 2)Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then appears to change his mind and finally follows low, but only after stating "Sorry, no problem." Declarer lets the J ride and it loses. Now I assume that we are in agreement that 1) is more or less the canonical 73F2 case. LHO, with no real bridge problem, has gone through a production that at least appears to have been designed to deceive declarer, and his behavior warrants an adjustment, right? If you're with me so far, then I would offer that the difference between 1) and 2) is negligible. LHO has merely offered a pro forma comment which does little to dispel the impression created by his (intentionally) deceptive actions. Has he really bought himself a free pass to conduct this little charade? I certainly hope not. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 07:07:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA09447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:07:21 +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 HAA09442 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:07:13 +1000 Received: from pcfs03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.208] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10XWsA-0001Su-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:07:03 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:07:55 +0100 Message-ID: <01be86ba$ddf03aa0$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: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception >Anne Jones wrote: > >> >> No. By split score what I meant was that if the award as per Law 12C2 >> produced a score which was gross then the AC may consider that > declarer >> might without the infraction "get it right" a certain percentage of > the >> time, and may "get it wrong" a certain percentage of the time then the >> calculation of matchpoints would be made to reflect this. For > instance, if >> the running of the club return to the eight was so much against the >> probability of it being succesful that the field was not "getting it > right" >> then a score in matchpoints equivalent to 70/40 may be awarded, rather > than >> +/- 420 wich may be 100% of available points to NOs. >> >> (Now I expect DWS and JP to tell me that I do not understand split > scoring.) > >Add me to that list :-) > >A "split" score is simply a "non balancing" score. It can be awarded >either under L12C1 or L12C2. If *some* score can be determined you are >forced to use C2. If you feel that does not create "equity" you can in >some jurisdictions apply C3. What you can *not* do is apply a "split" >score under *C1*, just because you feel it is difficult to do under C2. >At least that is how I interpret the last sentence of C2, but maybe it >can be interpreted differently? I'm pretty sure it was at least >*intended* my way, since if you can do what Anne proposes then L12C3 >would be virtually superfluous! As I understand "split score", this is quite different from an unbalanced artificial adjusted score. Law12B says that a TD may not award an adjusted (artificial or assigned) score because he believes the provisions of the law to be inadequate. 12C1 says that the TD may award an adjusted (artificial) score which does not balance. 12C2 says that the TD may award an adjusted (assigned) score which does not balance. 12C3 says that an AC may vary an adjusted assigned score as per 12C2, it does not permit the varying of an adjusted artificial score as per 12C1. As I understand it, an AC may decide that the most equitable result on a board may be one where the NOs achieve 58% of the available match points, and the offenders achieve 0%. These figures are achieved by considering that an action is more or less likely a greater or lesser part of the time, and maybe even a third option for a small percentage of the time. This appears to take precedence over Law 88 which says the NOs are guaranteed 60%. I think the point is that 12C1 is a percentage award.12C2 is a bridge score award.12C3 may be applied only to 12C2 but may be a percentage award which may not be convertable back to a recognised bridge score. This is I think what is referred to as a split score. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 07:58:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA09619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:58:41 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA09614 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:58:34 +1000 Received: from [130.15.119.197] (DU197.N119.QueensU.CA [130.15.119.197]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA16999 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:58:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:58:28 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote (in part): >As a separate matter, no one has explained to me what declarer thought West >was thinking about before he won the CQ, or (which amounts to the same >thing) why the hesitation made the losing line more attractive than it >would have been otherwise. Declarer assumed that West held Q73 in clubs, and was trying to decide whether to win the trick, or to let it ride to his partner's J (note that both defenders can take it for granted that declarer doesn't have the CJ, since with that card, declarer would have discarded a spade from the dummy on the third round of diamonds and claimed his contract). If declarer had thought more deeply about West's apparent problem with CQ73 (see the analysis below), he would have realized that winning the Q from that holding would be a clear error, and he might have rethought the position, but he was so convinced from the hesitation that West had a problem *on the second round of clubs* that he essentially dismissed the possibility of QJ73, since with that holding it was (i) immediately clear that West must win the trick (else the C10 would be declarer's tenth trick) and (ii) also immediately clear that he should win with the Q, the card he was already known to hold. That, at least, was declarer's position. and Eric Landau wrote (in part): >How would we rule if West had started with Q73, South had chosen to run >the 7 >to the 8 and had lost to the J, and then asked for protection on >the grounds >that he was entitled to assume from West's huddle before >winning the Q, when it >was clear that he was going to take the trick, >that he must hold the J? That >sounds to me like at least as good a case >as the one made by South here. Not true at all - with Q73, West might have to work out (i) that East must have the CJ for the reason mentioned above (ii) that South must have the spade A or the spade K, but not both, for the 1N opening (iii) that the contract can only be defeated if South has the spade K and misguesses the suit (iv) that therefore West can't afford to lead a spade, although East can (v) that it would be wrong for West to win the club Q and play another, since this would set up the fourth round if South happened to hold four clubs (vi) that therefore, West should duck, let East win the J, and trust East to put declarer to the guess by leading a low spade (or to play another club if East happened to hold four in the suit). Now West might perhaps falter along the way and get the decision wrong by winning the Q, but there is no possibility of his then falling afoul of Law73F, since he demonstrably had lots of bridge reasons for thinking about his play *to the second round of clubs*. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 08:40:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:40:33 +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 IAA09743 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:40:26 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id XAA18048 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:39:50 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Apr 99 23:39 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception 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: <199904132134.RAA00956@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > > Are you seriously asserting that whether to play the C-Q or C-J > was a genuine bridge problem? I was suggesting that whether to play the Q, J or 7 is genuine bridge problem and offered a possible hand layout where playing the 7 allowing partner to win the trick with his outstanding trump might be best. I did this by introducing a minor change to the trick 7 hand layout presented in the original post. (On further analysis I see that the layout given was impossible in the context of the description of the previous play [declarer is alleged to have drawn a second round of trumps but retains the KQJ between the two hands]). I would have to look at the actual layout more carefully to decide if the 7 could ever possibly be right in reality and whether any thought would be required at the table to determine that. Unfortunately I'm a bit pushed for time right now. > > Of course there was a genuine bridge problem at the next trick, but > that's not the legal issue, Bols tip or no. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 08:52:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:52:08 +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 IAA09767 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:52:00 +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 10XYVY-000JX1-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:51:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:50:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception References: <01be86ba$ddf03aa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be86ba$ddf03aa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >As I understand "split score", this is quite different from an unbalanced >artificial adjusted score. >Law12B says that a TD may not award an adjusted (artificial or assigned) >score because he believes the provisions of the law to be inadequate. >12C1 says that the TD may award an adjusted (artificial) score which does >not balance. >12C2 says that the TD may award an adjusted (assigned) score which does not >balance. >12C3 says that an AC may vary an adjusted assigned score as per 12C2, it >does not permit the varying of an adjusted artificial score as per 12C1. >As I understand it, an AC may decide that the most equitable result on a >board may be one where the NOs achieve 58% of the available match points, >and the offenders achieve 0%. These figures are achieved by considering that >an action is more or less likely a greater or lesser part of the time, and >maybe even a third option for a small percentage of the time. >This appears to take precedence over Law 88 which says the NOs are >guaranteed 60%. Only in ArtASs. In an assigned score, L88 has no relevance. > I think the point is that 12C1 is a percentage award.12C2 is a bridge score >award.12C3 may be applied only to 12C2 but may be a percentage award which >may not be convertable back to a recognised bridge score. >This is I think what is referred to as a split score. In the past, the term 'split' scores have been used for scores under L12C1 or L12C2 that do not balance, and also scores of the 40% +620, 60% -100 type under L12C3. A few months ago, this problem was identified, and BLML generally and the English L&EC accepted the idea that 'split' scores would refer to the two sides getting non-balancing scores, and scores under L12C3 would be referred to as 'weighted' adjustments. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 09:00:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:00:47 +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 JAA09791 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:00:41 +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 10XYe3-0004b0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:00:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:58:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Information for declarer References: <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> <4.1.19990413122941.00973ef0@sercit> <004701be8575$06880d40$4f6199d0@john> <004d01be861f$bae91c20$4d6199d0@john> <9mOeYoAxIIF3EwJ0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.5.32.19990414122853.008359d0@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990414122853.008359d0@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 12:55 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> If you are playing a weak no-trump, I do not see it as violating full >>disclosure if you refuse to give answers as to your responses to a >>strong no-trump: why should you tell the opponents something you are not >>playing? > >Suppose, however, that an opponent asked you if you could hold a five card >major and you tell them that you could. Without specific discussion with >your partner, is it a matter of general bridge knowledge what types of >hands might be opened 1NT despite holding a five card major, or is this >something that must be explained to the opponents? I think this is nearer >the issue involving the lead question. Perhaps we are arguing at cross-purposes. You are required to tell people what agreements you have. You are required to let people know about your implicit understandings based on experience. I have not disagreed with any of this. However, when the question is specifically "What holdings do you lead the king from, and what the ace?" and you have no such agreements, explicit or implicit, then you do not have to answer the question in that form. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 09:08:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:08:57 +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 JAA09807 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:08:44 +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 10XYlp-0005Rx-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:08:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:07:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.5.32.19990414123854.00818350@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990414123854.00818350@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 01:05 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >> I still cannot see what you find abhorrent in this procedure. It >>works well, reduces problems, and has no apparent downside: why do you >>want to increase ethical problems? > >Except that it also informs partner. True, I had forgotten that. OK, that is the downside, UI problems. Still, it should still be done, being a requirement of the Law, certainly a requirement of Active Ethics, and as a general approach, abhorrent to me that anyone would place partner's ethical difficulties ahead of making ethical problems for opponents. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 09:20:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:20:14 +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 JAA09837 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:20:07 +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 10XYwq-0006Pa-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:20:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:18:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F References: <9904140956.0DZ2F00@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > >> The law says that it is improper to to deceive by varying tempo. If a >> variation in tempo deceives, the deception is an illegal deception. >> >> Roger Pewick > >No, the Laws say it's improper to *attempt* to deceive by varying tempo. > >In the book "Dormer on Deduction", Dr.Watson tells Sherlock Holmes >about a hand he defended against Moriarty. In a trump contract, >Moriarty had singleton ace in the side-suit that was led, with >QTxx in dummy. He wanted to encourage a continuation, so >wanted to > (a) play the Q if RHO had the K, and > (b) play the T if RHO had the J, >so that the defence might think they had a trick to cash in >this suit when they regained the lead. > >He thought for a long time about which was more likely, and got it >right. Dr.Watson was duly deceived, and was highly indignant, but >Holmes persuaded him that on this occasion Moriarty had done nothing >wrong. > >This is probably the most subtle ethical point I've seen discussed in a >bridge book. > >Does anybody here think Holmes was wrong? [Ignore the fact that this was >at trick one, so Moriarty was entitled to think before playing from >dummy anyway.] Demonstrable bridge reason? He seems to have one, though getting it past an AC might be tricky. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 09:25:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:25:35 +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 JAA09853 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:25:28 +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 10XZ22-0006wI-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:25:22 +0000 Message-ID: <3cl8maAfOSF3Ewqn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 00:24:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990414162109.006e7398@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990414162109.006e7398@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 01:05 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David S wrote: >> I still cannot see what you find abhorrent in this procedure. It >>works well, reduces problems, and has no apparent downside: why do you >>want to increase ethical problems? >> >Abhorrent is much too strong a word. I raised the issue because I have a >concern. I don't think it's a silly one, and I do find a potential >downside. Consider two cases: > >1) Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >appears to change his mind and finally follows low. Declarer lets the J >ride and it loses. > >2)Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >appears to change his mind and finally follows low, but only after stating >"Sorry, no problem." Declarer lets the J ride and it loses. > >Now I assume that we are in agreement that 1) is more or less the canonical >73F2 case. LHO, with no real bridge problem, has gone through a production >that at least appears to have been designed to deceive declarer, and his >behavior warrants an adjustment, right? > >If you're with me so far, then I would offer that the difference between 1) >and 2) is negligible. LHO has merely offered a pro forma comment which does >little to dispel the impression created by his (intentionally) deceptive >actions. Has he really bought himself a free pass to conduct this little >charade? I certainly hope not. I do not understand this. 2) is just stupid. The declarer knows this player has not got the queen. If he now wants to take the finesse the wrong way deliberately he is a jerk. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 10:07:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:07:50 +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 KAA09967 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:07:39 +1000 Received: from p5cs08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.93] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10XZgp-0007Y9-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:07:32 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 01:08:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01be86d4$17045060$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 12:16 AM Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception >David Stevenson wrote: > In the past, the term 'split' scores have been used for scores under >L12C1 or L12C2 that do not balance, and also scores of the 40% +620, 60% >-100 type under L12C3. > > A few months ago, this problem was identified, and BLML generally and >the English L&EC accepted the idea that 'split' scores would refer to >the two sides getting non-balancing scores, and scores under L12C3 would >be referred to as 'weighted' adjustments. Ahahh! - Right. So this means that a TD can award a split-score. We know he can because 12C2 says so quite clearly. However I am not so sure that the awarding of a weighted score can be done by a TD. 40% of 620, and 60% of -100 is not a score which can be achieved at the table, so it is neither "likely" or "probable" in the words of 12C2. This then is the prerogative under 12C3 of an AC, and if the Zonal Organisation have specified otherwise, as in ACBLand, this would be a concept which does not exist there? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 11:22:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:22:36 +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 LAA10182 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:22:30 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA02118 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005501be86de$6bd167e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01be86d4$17045060$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:19:54 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > So this means that a TD can award a split-score. We know he can because 12C2 > says so quite clearly. However I am not so sure that the awarding of a > weighted score can be done by a TD. 40% of 620, and 60% of -100 is not a > score which can be achieved at the table, so it is neither "likely" or > "probable" in the words of 12C2. As L12C3 says, only an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score. This is not one of the TD powers. > This then is the prerogative under 12C3 of an AC, and if the Zonal > Organisation have specified otherwise, as in ACBLand, this would be a > concept which does not exist there? Correct. L12C3 seemed like a good idea to some of us, until we saw it exercised to an extreme in Lille, where it was interpreted as permitting any sort of action whatsoever by an AC. After seeing that, I believe the ACBL-land consensus is that we want no part of L12C3, and the ACBL was wise to reject it. A reasonable application of L12C3 would subordinate it to L12C2, merely extending L12C2's provisions to permit multiple assignments based on probabilities. Evidently that is not possible. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 11:55:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:55:44 +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 LAA10279 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:55:34 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.78]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA26815; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:50:21 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <004101be86da$39eedae0$4e6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <9904132009.0SB8702@bbs.hal-pc.org> <37147073.1B246E68@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:52:21 -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 | r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: | > | > | > | > I am not so quick to say that bridge problems include such things as | > figuring out how to commit an illegal deception. Whether a player knows | > that a situation is tempo sensitive or not, an improper deception can be the | > basis for an appropriate adjusted score. | > |Herman De Wael wrote: | One comment : a _legal_ deception. | | Pausing to reflect on which card would best deceive declarer | is IMO not improper. | | The player has a bridge reason for thinking. | | This is a very tricky subject indeed. I am sorry but IMO, this pause to relflect on which card to play to best deceive declarer is highly improper, especially when they are equals. The player does not have a bridge reason for thinking, they have a poker (or bluff/double bluff/triple bluff/etc) reason for thinking. To promote the view that it is correct to pause to think in these situations would be contrary to the principles of this great game of ours. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 12:45:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA10386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:45:24 +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 MAA10381 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:45:19 +1000 Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp170.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.23.182.50]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26459; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:43:00 +1000 Message-ID: <00b201be86e9$bcc3c0c0$32b617cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Information for declarer Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:43:24 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AF_01BE873D.8D8DFC40" 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_00AF_01BE873D.8D8DFC40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Jan Kamras To: blml Date: 15 April 1999 6:18 Subject: Re: Information for declarer =20 =20 Tim Goodwin wrote: =20 > Suppose, however, that an opponent asked you if you could hold a = five > card > major and you tell them that you could. Without specific = discussion > with > your partner, is it a matter of general bridge knowledge what = types of > hands might be opened 1NT despite holding a five card major, or is = > this > something that must be explained to the opponents? =20 =20 I think this is fairly simple: If you have discussed with pard which types qualify and which don't, you share this info with opponents. = If you haven't, you should not advise opponents of what you feel might = be best. Of course, if you have enough "partnership experience" about = which hands are likely to qualify, you consider that as if "discussed". =20 In my favourite partnership we have agreed to open 1NT (15-17) on = all hands presenting a rebid-problem if opened 1M. We tell the opponents this. We also tell them this results in 90+% of balanced 5cM hands = with 15-17 hcp being opened 1NT. I *don't* think we need to point out to = them that this does *not* mean 90% of our 1NT openings contain a 5 cd = Major! =20 PS: It is interesting to note differences in these percentages for a 12-14 NT as well as for a 2/1 system (in both cases fewer hands = would have those rebid-problems when opened 1M). Some differences also = occur between H and S as the 5cM, in a 2/1 context. Although these tendencies are in a sense "general bridge-knowledge", ## I don't believe that you could describe these situations as = "general bridge knowledge" as they are specific to the system being = played by your partnership and are therefore a partnership agreement. ## = Sean Mullamphy it might not be immediately obvious to those never opening 1NT with = a 5cM, nor to those playing the opposite NT-range. So how should one = disclose? In a sense the present method of saying 1NT never/sometimes/frequently/often contain a 5cM might not be the most appropriate, since "sometimes" might mean a different thing to a 4cM player than to a 2/1 player, but maybe it is the most practical? =20 Sorry to go so far off topic :-) ------=_NextPart_000_00AF_01BE873D.8D8DFC40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Jan Kamras <jkamras@home.com>
To: = blml=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 15 April 1999 6:18
Subject: Re: Information for=20 declarer

Tim Goodwin wrote:

> Suppose, = however, that an opponent asked you if you could hold a five >=20 card
> major and you tell them that you could.  Without = specific=20 discussion > with
> your partner, is it a matter of general = bridge=20 knowledge what types of
> hands might be opened 1NT despite = holding a=20 five card major, or is > this
> something that must be = explained to=20 the opponents? 

I think this is fairly simple: If you = have=20 discussed with pard which
types qualify and which don't, you = share this=20 info with opponents. If
you haven't, you should not advise = opponents of=20 what you feel might be
best. Of course, if you have enough=20 "partnership experience" about which
hands are likely = to=20 qualify, you consider that as if "discussed".

In my = favourite partnership we have agreed to open 1NT (15-17) on = all
hands=20 presenting a rebid-problem if opened 1M. We tell the = opponents
this. We=20 also tell them this results in 90+% of balanced 5cM hands = with
15-17 hcp=20 being opened 1NT. I *don't* think we need to point out to = them
that this=20 does *not* mean 90% of our 1NT openings contain a 5 cd = Major!

PS: It=20 is interesting to note differences in these percentages for = a
12-14 NT as=20 well as for a 2/1 system (in both cases fewer hands would
have = those=20 rebid-problems when opened 1M). Some differences also = occur
between H and=20 S as the 5cM, in a 2/1 context.
Although these tendencies are in = a sense=20 "general bridge-knowledge", ##=20 I don't believe that you could describe these situations as = "general=20 bridge knowledge" as they are specific to the system being = played by=20 your partnership and are therefore a partnership agreement. ##  = Sean=20 Mullamphy  it=20 might not be immediately obvious to those never opening 1NT with a=20 5cM,
nor to those playing the opposite NT-range. So how should = one=20 disclose?
In a sense the present method of saying=20 1NT
never/sometimes/frequently/often contain a 5cM might not be = the=20 most
appropriate, since "sometimes" might mean a = different=20 thing to a 4cM
player than to a 2/1 player, but maybe it is the = most=20 practical?

Sorry to go so far off topic=20 :-)
------=_NextPart_000_00AF_01BE873D.8D8DFC40-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 13:46:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:46:10 +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 NAA10502 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:46:03 +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 10Xd6B-0006Ok-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 03:45:56 +0000 Message-ID: <8ekmleA66UF3EwLR@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 03:28:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Tim Goodwin wrote: >>At 01:05 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>> I still cannot see what you find abhorrent in this procedure. It >>>works well, reduces problems, and has no apparent downside: why do you >>>want to increase ethical problems? >> >>Except that it also informs partner. > > True, I had forgotten that. OK, that is the downside, UI problems. >Still, it should still be done, being a requirement of the Law, >certainly a requirement of Active Ethics, and as a general approach, >abhorrent to me that anyone would place partner's ethical difficulties >ahead of making ethical problems for opponents. > Further to David's comments: I strongly feel that if one is faced with MI to opponents or UI to partner, one should resolve the MI and put up with the consequences of the UI. The Law says that MI must be corrected whilst it accepts that gratuitous comments (such as "no problem") cause UI. However there is no law saying you can't create UI. As a style I am, as a TD, very harsh on MI, and probably a bit cavalier over UI. The players whom we serve get far more pee-ed off over MI than UI, and quite rightly so IMO. For example I never (well hardly ever) give a PP for UI, even if blatant, but more freely hand them out for MI. Disclosure is a necessity in bridge, hitches and comments will always occur. -- 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 Apr 15 14:20:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:20:10 +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 OAA10554 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:20:03 +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 XAA12400 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Apr 1999 23:19:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0W9AU036 Wed, 14 Apr 99 22:57:45 Message-ID: <9904142257.0W9AU03@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 99 22:57:45 Subject: LAW 73D-F To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please do not be deceived. As I read the law, certain things are considered in addition to an illegal deception before adjusting the score. I also understand that intending to deceive by varying tempo can be the basis for a PP whether or not there was damage- however, such things such as mind reading are not done easily and hence it is difficult to prove. Roger Pewick B>r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: B>> B>> The law says that it is improper to to deceive by varying tempo. If a B>> variation in tempo deceives, the deception is an illegal deception. B>A=>B isn't neccessarily equal to B=>A. B>*Intent* is what counts. Just because your opponent "was deceived" B>doesn't give automatic redress. B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 16:40:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA10774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 16:40:42 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA10768 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 16:40:35 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial53.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.53]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA28821; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:40:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:40:26 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Cc: Tim West-Meads Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:53 PM -0400 4/13/99, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >As a separate matter, no one has explained to me what declarer thought West >was thinking about before he won the CQ, or (which amounts to the same >thing) why the hesitation made the losing line more attractive than it >would have been otherwise. I understand now why no one answered my question here - it appeared obtuse to the point of being nonsensical. I had misread the original line of play, and thought dummy had led the C10 to trick seven. With East having already followed with a low club ducking the queen would not have been an option for West. My thanks to Roger Penwick, who answered my question privately. - Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 17:28:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:28:22 +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 RAA10929 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:28:15 +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 10XgZ8-000KXd-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:28:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:38:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) References: <01be86d4$17045060$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <005501be86de$6bd167e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005501be86de$6bd167e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > >> So this means that a TD can award a split-score. We know he can >because 12C2 >> says so quite clearly. However I am not so sure that the awarding of a >> weighted score can be done by a TD. 40% of 620, and 60% of -100 is not >a >> score which can be achieved at the table, so it is neither "likely" or >> "probable" in the words of 12C2. > >As L12C3 says, only an appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted >score. This is not one of the TD powers. > >> This then is the prerogative under 12C3 of an AC, and if the Zonal >> Organisation have specified otherwise, as in ACBLand, this would be a >> concept which does not exist there? > >Correct. L12C3 seemed like a good idea to some of us, until we saw it >exercised to an extreme in Lille, where it was interpreted as permitting >any sort of action whatsoever by an AC. After seeing that, I believe the >ACBL-land consensus is that we want no part of L12C3, and the ACBL was >wise to reject it. > >A reasonable application of L12C3 would subordinate it to L12C2, merely >extending L12C2's provisions to permit multiple assignments based on >probabilities. Evidently that is not possible. It is perfectly possible: why should it be otherwise? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 17:33:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:33:51 +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 RAA10958 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:33:43 +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 HAA05499 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:33:06 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 HAA05802 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:31:22 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990415093325.007dbcc0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:33:25 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <3cl8maAfOSF3Ewqn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990414162109.006e7398@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990414162109.006e7398@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:24 15/04/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 01:05 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David S wrote: >>> I still cannot see what you find abhorrent in this procedure. It >>>works well, reduces problems, and has no apparent downside: why do you >>>want to increase ethical problems? >>> >>Abhorrent is much too strong a word. I raised the issue because I have a >>concern. I don't think it's a silly one, and I do find a potential >>downside. Consider two cases: >> >>1) Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >>in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >>appears to change his mind and finally follows low. Declarer lets the J >>ride and it loses. >> >>2)Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >>in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >>appears to change his mind and finally follows low, but only after stating >>"Sorry, no problem." Declarer lets the J ride and it loses. >> >>Now I assume that we are in agreement that 1) is more or less the canonical >>73F2 case. LHO, with no real bridge problem, has gone through a production >>that at least appears to have been designed to deceive declarer, and his >>behavior warrants an adjustment, right? >> >>If you're with me so far, then I would offer that the difference between 1) >>and 2) is negligible. LHO has merely offered a pro forma comment which does >>little to dispel the impression created by his (intentionally) deceptive >>actions. Has he really bought himself a free pass to conduct this little >>charade? I certainly hope not. > > I do not understand this. 2) is just stupid. The declarer knows this >player has not got the queen. If he now wants to take the finesse the >wrong way deliberately he is a jerk. > Let's be realistic: when LHO huddles in this situation, he has lost; whether he adds a comment or not, declarer knows which way to take a safe finesse: either it is successful or it will become after TD's intervention. Some huddles are not infractions but are clear "bridge errors" and we must admit that, in some situations, a double shot can be a legal and ethical action. No moral problem with it for me. Anyone? 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 Apr 15 18:36:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA11130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:36:23 +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 SAA11125 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:36:15 +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 IAA08475 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:35:40 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 IAA10633 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 08:33:55 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990415103600.007dd240@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:36:00 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <004101be86da$39eedae0$4e6199d0@john> References: <9904132009.0SB8702@bbs.hal-pc.org> <37147073.1B246E68@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:52 14/04/99 -0300, John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >| r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >| > >| > >| > >| > I am not so quick to say that bridge problems include such things as >| > figuring out how to commit an illegal deception. Whether a player knows >| > that a situation is tempo sensitive or not, an improper deception can be >the >| > basis for an appropriate adjusted score. >| > >|Herman De Wael wrote: >| One comment : a _legal_ deception. >| >| Pausing to reflect on which card would best deceive declarer >| is IMO not improper. >| >| The player has a bridge reason for thinking. >| >| This is a very tricky subject indeed. > >I am sorry but IMO, this pause to relflect on which card to play to best >deceive declarer is >highly improper, especially when they are equals. The player does not have >a bridge >reason for thinking, they have a poker (or bluff/double bluff/triple >bluff/etc) reason for >thinking. >To promote the view that it is correct to pause to think in these situations >would be contrary >to the principles of this great game of ours. > This is a very hard position you take. When a player intents to deceive via the hesitation, to make the opponents believe he holds what they would not believe if he did not hesitate, everybody agrees to shoot him. When he intents to deceive by choosing to play the card which could be the most confusing for them, he is, at least, less guilty and if he needs some time to do this, it can be argued he has a bridge reason for his hesitation; no doubt Moriarty would prefer to be able to find the right play without hesitation. If we follow you further, as there is no causality, in this case, between the deception and the huddle, we could infer it is unfair, even in tempo, to play another card than the 2, on the lead of the 3, with Q1092 in dummy and stiff A in hand. 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 Apr 15 18:58:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA11191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:58:07 +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 SAA11186 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:58:01 +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, 15 Apr 1999 09:57:31 +0100 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 JAA15887 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:53:34 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <004101be86da$39eedae0$4e6199d0@john> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:50:50 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 "John A. Mac Gregor wrote: > |Herman De Wael wrote: > | One comment : a _legal_ deception. > | > | Pausing to reflect on which card would best deceive declarer > | is IMO not improper. > | > | The player has a bridge reason for thinking. > | > | This is a very tricky subject indeed. > > I am sorry but IMO, this pause to relflect on which card to play to best > deceive declarer is > highly improper, especially when they are equals. The player does > not have a bridge > reason for thinking, they have a poker (or bluff/double bluff/triple > bluff/etc) reason for thinking. Falsecarding, or otherwise defending so as to conceal (by the cards you play) important information from declarer *is* part of bridge, and this is explicitly stated in the Laws (L73E). Sometimes choosing the *right* deceptive play, even choosing the right deceptive card from equals, may take some thought. Is this not a "demonstrable bridge reason" for thinking? [I'm not suggesting this is the case in the hand that started this discussion.] > To promote the view that it is correct to pause to think in these situations > would be contrary > to the principles of this great game of ours. I disagree. Which principles? --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 15 23:15:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:15:35 +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 XAA11840 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:15:28 +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 JAA27178 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990415091805.006e28b4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:18:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F In-Reply-To: <9904140956.0DZ2F00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:56 AM 4/14/99, r.pewick wrote: >The law says that it is improper to to deceive by varying tempo. If a >variation in tempo deceives, the deception is an illegal deception. I don't see where the law says any such thing. It is improper to (a) vary your tempo in an attempt to deceive (L73D2), or to (b) deceive "innocently" (i.e. without intent to do so) when (i) you have no demonstrable problem and (ii) you could have known at the time that the tempo break could work to your benefit (L73F2). If your break in tempo deceives your opponent in circumstances not covered by (1) or (2) above, he has been deceived "at his own risk" (L73D1). 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 Apr 15 23:36:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:36:07 +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 XAA11942 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:36:01 +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 JAA28539 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:34:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990415093839.006e4a00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:38:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990414162109.006e7398@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <9904130812.0BJ5600@bbs.hal-pc.org> <01c601be85e1$66f942e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413194633.006f39dc@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990413234140.006ef868@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:21 PM 4/14/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >1) Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >appears to change his mind and finally follows low. Declarer lets the J >ride and it loses. > >2)Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >appears to change his mind and finally follows low, but only after stating >"Sorry, no problem." Declarer lets the J ride and it loses. > >Now I assume that we are in agreement that 1) is more or less the canonical >73F2 case. LHO, with no real bridge problem, has gone through a production >that at least appears to have been designed to deceive declarer, and his >behavior warrants an adjustment, right? > >If you're with me so far, then I would offer that the difference between 1) >and 2) is negligible. LHO has merely offered a pro forma comment which does >little to dispel the impression created by his (intentionally) deceptive >actions. Has he really bought himself a free pass to conduct this little >charade? I certainly hope not. One can make the case that the comment is -- or should be assumed by the opponent to be -- a proper attempt to "be particularly careful in [a] position[] in which [a] variation[] may work to the benefit of [the huddler's] side". If so, declarer may properly conclude that LHO does not have the Q. If LHO does have the Q, he has violated L73D2 ("A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a remark..."); throw the book at him, or at least as much of the book as you would throw at him in case (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 Fri Apr 16 00:25:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:25:17 +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 AAA14338 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:25:11 +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 KAA02315 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990415102749.006e4a00@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:27:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <004101be86da$39eedae0$4e6199d0@john> References: <9904132009.0SB8702@bbs.hal-pc.org> <37147073.1B246E68@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:52 PM 4/14/99 -0300, John wrote: >I am sorry but IMO, this pause to relflect on which card to play to best >deceive declarer is >highly improper, especially when they are equals. The player does not have >a bridge >reason for thinking, they have a poker (or bluff/double bluff/triple >bluff/etc) reason for >thinking. >To promote the view that it is correct to pause to think in these situations >would be contrary >to the principles of this great game of ours. One of the "principles of this great game of ours" is that "A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience)" (L73E). So "bluff/double bluff/triple bluff" is a legitimate aspect of the game insofar as it is done in the appropriate context as set forth in the laws -- and, IMO, the game would be a lot poorer without it. Once we admit that a particular deception (e.g. a normal "falsecard") is proper and legitimate, it seems to follow that a player's decision whether or how to attempt to perpetrate such a (legitimate) deception might provide a demonstrable "bridge reason for thinking". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 00:34:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:34:40 +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 AAA14384 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:34:34 +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 KAA02883; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990415103708.006e73e8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:37:08 -0400 To: "Canberra Bridge Club" From: Eric Landau Subject: A plea for plain text (WAS: Information for declarer) Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <00b201be86e9$bcc3c0c0$32b617cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please send all messages to BLML in plain text, not in (or with embedded) HTML or RTF or whatever. I'm sure that you had some interesting things to say on the subject of "information for declarer", and would have liked to have been able to read them. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 01:17:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 01:17:26 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14528 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 01:17:12 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA06530 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:17:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA02196 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:17:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:17:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904151517.LAA02196@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" > I am sorry but IMO, this pause to relflect on which card to play to best > deceive declarer is > highly improper, especially when they are equals. I'm not sure which case you are referring to, but the language of L73F2 says nothing about the purpose of the pause. Instead it talks about "demonstrable bridge reason." Contrast the Moriarty case (QTx in dummy, singleton A in hand, small card led on his left) with the hesitation holding KQx behind dummy's AJx with the small one led from dummy. Moriarty can easily visualize two different arrangements of the unseen hands, and his play from dummy has to be different depending on which arrangement is the actual one. It is a genuine bridge problem to work out which arrangement is more likely, and I think Moriarty can demonstrate the problem to anyone. Of course we don't know whether Moriarty was playing under the 1997 version of the Laws. :-) Holding KQx, defender perhaps has a vague notion that one honor or the other might be more deceptive, but in general he would have a hard time demonstrating that there is a bridge reason for choosing one or the other. Therefore this case is eligible for L73F2 adjustment if the other conditions are met. If, in a specific hand, defender could show a bridge reason for having to play one card and not the other, the hand would not be eligible for adjustment after all. (I've seen related examples where it is crucial which honor to play from QJ doubleton, I think perhaps in one of the "Androcles MacThick" books.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 02:49:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 02:49:09 +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 CAA15002 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 02:49:03 +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 LAA22950 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:48:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GK0G00Q Thu, 15 Apr 99 11:47:05 Message-ID: <9904151147.0GK0G00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 99 11:47:05 Subject: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would not think that a problem about by which method to break bridge law, by conscious means or not, would qualify as a bridge problem. Roger Pewick B>"John A. Mac Gregor wrote: B>> |Herman De Wael wrote: B>> | One comment : a _legal_ deception. B>> | B>> | Pausing to reflect on which card would best deceive declarer B>> | is IMO not improper. B>> | B>> | The player has a bridge reason for thinking. B>> | B>> | This is a very tricky subject indeed. B>> B>> I am sorry but IMO, this pause to relflect on which card to play to B>best > deceive declarer is B>> highly improper, especially when they are equals. The player does B>> not have a bridge B>> reason for thinking, they have a poker (or bluff/double bluff/triple B>> bluff/etc) reason for thinking. B>Falsecarding, or otherwise defending so as to conceal (by the cards you B>play) important information from declarer *is* part of bridge, and this B>is explicitly stated in the Laws (L73E). Sometimes choosing the *right* B>deceptive play, even choosing the right deceptive card from equals, may B>take some thought. Is this not a "demonstrable bridge reason" for B>thinking? B>[I'm not suggesting this is the case in the hand that started this B>discussion.] B>> To promote the view that it is correct to pause to think in these B>situations > would be contrary B>> to the principles of this great game of ours. B>I disagree. Which principles? B>--------------------------------- B>Jeremy Rickard B>J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk B>http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html B>Tel:- 0117 9287989 B>Fax:- 0117 9287999 B>--------------------------------- B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 03:47:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 03:47:51 +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 DAA15174 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 03:47:44 +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, 15 Apr 1999 18:47:37 +0100 Received: (from majcr@localhost) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) id SAA25758 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:44:51 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199904151744.SAA25758@elios.maths.bris.ac.uk.> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 18:44:51 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <9904151147.0GK0G00@bbs.hal-pc.org> from "r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org" at Apr 15, 99 11:47:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I would not think that a problem about by which method to break bridge law, > by conscious means or not, would qualify as a bridge problem. > > Roger Pewick Nobody has suggested that it would. I get the feeling that there is some arguing at cross-purposes going on in this thread. If your comment was in reply to my posting, as it appeared to be, I think you must have misunderstood what I meant. To clarify my point: (a) It is legal, ethical, honourable to attempt to deceive declarer by means of which card you play. (b) It is sometimes not obvious which card will deceive declarer effectively (otherwise nobody would have written articles about defensive falsecarding). (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in such situations is a genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a break in tempo. I was certainly not suggesting that anybody should start considering how best to break bridge law. Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 04:22:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 04:22:44 +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 EAA15354 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 04:22:37 +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 NAA04079 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:22:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0I8J200Z Thu, 15 Apr 99 12:58:54 Message-ID: <9904151258.0I8J200@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 99 12:58:54 Subject: LAW 73D-F To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am sorry. I thought that the nuance of the English language was obvious but apparently it is not. It is improper for a player to deceive an opponent by varying their tempo where the vehicle of deception is the variation of tempo [or manner]. It does seem that if a bridge problem in fact exists, that a variation of tempo is not a vehicle of deception; perhaps a source of UI to partner, though. For those who quibble over my failure to mention 'attempt' it does seem that when a player has been deceived that an attempt to deceive was successful, and if it was a illegal deception that was successful, then it caused damage. Roger Pewick B>At 09:56 AM 4/14/99, r.pewick wrote: B>>The law says that it is improper to to deceive by varying tempo. If a B>>variation in tempo deceives, the deception is an illegal deception. B>I don't see where the law says any such thing. It is improper to (a) B>vary your tempo in an attempt to deceive (L73D2), or to (b) deceive B>"innocently" (i.e. without intent to do so) when (i) you have no B>demonstrable problem and (ii) you could have known at the time that the B>tempo break could work to your benefit (L73F2). If your break in tempo B>deceives your opponent in circumstances not covered by (1) or (2) above, B>he has been deceived "at his own risk" (L73D1). B>Eric Landau elandau@cais.com B>APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org B>1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 B>Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 04:23:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 04:23:27 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA15373 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 04:23:18 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA12820 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA02313 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:23:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:23:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904151823.OAA02313@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jeremy Rickard > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in [falsecard] situations is a > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > break in tempo. I'm not sure whether Jeremy and I disagree or not. If the player can demonstrate a reason for believing one card will be more deceptive than the other, then I agree it's a genuine bridge problem. This is the "Moriarty" case. If, on the other hand, the player has only a vague feeling that one card or another might be more deceptive and cannot demonstrate a bridge reason for preferring one or the other, there is no bridge problem. This we might call the "which card of equals" case, although of course it applies more generally. Finally, thinking about "Where did I park the car?" or which card to play from a singleton never qualifies as a bridge problem. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 04:58:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 04:58:08 +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 EAA15514 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 04:58:01 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19301 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:53:53 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904151853.NAA19301@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:53:53 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wasn't going to say anything on this thread, but... > > I would not think that a problem about by which method to break bridge law, > > by conscious means or not, would qualify as a bridge problem. > > > > Roger Pewick > > Nobody has suggested that it would. I get the feeling that there is > some arguing at cross-purposes going on in this thread. If your > comment was in reply to my posting, as it appeared to be, I think > you must have misunderstood what I meant. To clarify my point: > > (a) It is legal, ethical, honourable to attempt to deceive declarer > by means of which card you play. > > (b) It is sometimes not obvious which card will deceive declarer > effectively (otherwise nobody would have written articles about > defensive falsecarding). > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in such situations is a > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > break in tempo. > > I was certainly not suggesting that anybody should start considering > how best to break bridge law. > > Jeremy. > I do not think the second half of 'c' follows from the first. When a player's goal is to deceive, he must take care in those situations where the _hesitation_ has a significantly greater deceptive power than the deceptive play itself! If, in the Moriarty case, the act of the hesitation itself is more likely to deceive than the play of the T or Q, then I do not think the decision of whether to play the T or Q counts as a 'valid reason for a break in tempo'. In other words, I think there are cases in which the illegal deception [per L73D1] is damaging enough to override the legal deception [per L73E, et al]. Players must be 'particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side'--and noticeable hesitations in order to plan intricate falsecards as surely such cases. -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 05:18:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 05:18:53 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA15584 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 05:18:48 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id PAA07797; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:18:13 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id PAA21781; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904151918.PAA21781@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list), metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:18:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote [excerpted - full response included at end]: >>1) [canonical hesitation on 2-way finesse when not holding the Q deleted] >>2)Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >>in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >>appears to change his mind and finally follows low, but only after stating >>"Sorry, no problem." Declarer lets the J ride and it loses. >> >>If you're with me so far, then I would offer that the difference between 1) >>and 2) is negligible. LHO has merely offered a pro forma comment which does >>little to dispel the impression created by his (intentionally) deceptive >>actions. Has he really bought himself a free pass to conduct this little >>charade? I certainly hope not. >>Mike Dennis I would disagree. If LHO says he has no problem, he had better have no bridge problem. Otherwise I would rule that, by L73F2, the remark was an attempt to deceive, and I would adjust. If declarer rises and finesses into LHO, who wins the Q, I would adjust the score. If declarer decides not to believe LHO, and finesses anyway, and the finesse loses, then he is out of luck. This is where your two cases diverge, in my opinion. --David Metcalf Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 01:05 PM 4/14/99 +0100, David S wrote: >>> I still cannot see what you find abhorrent in this procedure. It >>>works well, reduces problems, and has no apparent downside: why do you >>>want to increase ethical problems? >>> >>Abhorrent is much too strong a word. I raised the issue because I have a >>concern. I don't think it's a silly one, and I do find a potential >>downside. Consider two cases: >> >>1) Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >>in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >>appears to change his mind and finally follows low. Declarer lets the J >>ride and it loses. >> >>2)Having to guess the location of a Q, declarer tables the J with the ATx >>in dummy. LHO tanks, plays with his cards as if to play one card, then >>appears to change his mind and finally follows low, but only after stating >>"Sorry, no problem." Declarer lets the J ride and it loses. >> >>Now I assume that we are in agreement that 1) is more or less the canonical >>73F2 case. LHO, with no real bridge problem, has gone through a production >>that at least appears to have been designed to deceive declarer, and his >>behavior warrants an adjustment, right? >> >>If you're with me so far, then I would offer that the difference between 1) >>and 2) is negligible. LHO has merely offered a pro forma comment which does >>little to dispel the impression created by his (intentionally) deceptive >>actions. Has he really bought himself a free pass to conduct this little >>charade? I certainly hope not. >> >>Mike Dennis >> From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 06:49:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 06:49:07 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA15796 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 06:49:00 +1000 Received: from [130.15.119.197] (DU197.N119.QueensU.CA [130.15.119.197]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27162; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 16:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 16:48:56 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Cc: allan@adan.kingston.net, INFO@ams.queensu.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads noted a mistake in the original presentation of the problem. The position at trick 7, when South led a low club towards dummy's 10, was in fact: J10 K654 - 10 Q853 A74 - - - Q98 QJ7 5 K96 8 - 842 declarer having led the heart J on the first round of trumps (preparing to pick up A1093 with West if necessary), so two top trumps had been expended to draw the opponents' pieces. This doesn't affect any of the analysis performed to date, so far as I can see, although from another comment by Tim, I should also point out that both defenders know declarer has the missing trump, since opener's acceptance of the transfer after East's double guaranteed at least 3 trumps. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 10:22:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:22:00 +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 KAA16391 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:21:46 +1000 Received: from p38s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.57] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10XwNx-0003XE-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 01:21:34 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 01:16:01 +0100 Message-ID: <01be879e$4f6bcd00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 9:22 AM Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) >Marvin L. French wrote: >>A reasonable application of L12C3 would subordinate it to L12C2, merely >>extending L12C2's provisions to permit multiple assignments based on >>probabilities. Evidently that is not possible. > > It is perfectly possible: why should it be otherwise? > >-- >David Stevenson Not only is it possible, but it is desirable. I am of the opinion that when a TD gives a good ruling, the AC is unlikely to be involved. This is good for the game as the increasingly frequent cries of "appeal" should be unnecessary. It is a poor show if the only way a contestant can achieve a fair result is to appeal the ruling of the TD. An AC should not have powers that the TD does not have. I assume that if the CTD at an event hears an appeal under L93A, he may use L12C3. What is wrong with giving this power to his TDs who should be ruling as he would anyway. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 13:34:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:34:25 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA16900 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:34:19 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial41.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.41]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA27307; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01be879e$4f6bcd00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:31:40 -0400 To: "Anne Jones" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >It is a poor show if the only way a contestant can achieve a fair result is >to appeal the ruling of the TD. True, but surely a correct application of the Laws must by definition be fair. The Laws apply to all equally! >An AC should not have powers that the TD does not have. I agree with you completely on this point. Why should one have more committees than necessary? Do we have nothing better to do than wait around after the game? We disagree just a tad on 12C3. You seem to think it's wonderful, whereas I believe it's dreadful. I expect this has been discussed to death here. I have nothing in particular to add, but no doubt I'll respond if provoked. - Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 13:48:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:48:02 +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 NAA16950 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:47:56 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA07296 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 20:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005701be87bb$ea6256e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01be879e$4f6bcd00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 20:47:51 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote:> > > >Marvin L. French wrote: > > >>A reasonable application of L12C3 would subordinate it to L12C2, merely > >>extending L12C2's provisions to permit multiple assignments based on > >>probabilities. Evidently that is not possible. > > > > It is perfectly possible: why should it be otherwise? > > > >-- > >David Stevenson > > Not only is it possible, but it is desirable. Perhaps it *is* possible, if proper guidelines for L12C3 are issued and enforced. What I meant is that ZA's who accept L12C3 seem incapable of controlling the decisions that are made in the name of L12C3, which is interpreted by some as giving carte blanche to ACs to do anything they wish. I'm only going by what happened in Lille, as I have no knowledge of other L12C3 implementations. By subordinating L12C3 to L12C2, I mean that varied scores should still represent the most favorable result that was likely for the NOs if the infraction had not occurred, the variance only coming from a lack of unanimity on the AC as to what that result would be. Same for the most unfavorable result that was at all probable > I am of the opinion that when a TD gives a good ruling, the AC is unlikely > to be involved. This is good for the game as the increasingly frequent cries > of "appeal" should be unnecessary. > It is a poor show if the only way a contestant can achieve a fair result is > to appeal the ruling of the TD. > An AC should not have powers that the TD does not have. I assume that if the > CTD at an event hears an appeal under L93A, he may use L12C3. What is wrong > with giving this power to his TDs who should be ruling as he would anyway. Perhaps the idea is that each person, TD or AC member, has to decide on a single assigned score for each side. It's hard for me to imagine a person saying, "Well, the most unfavorable result at all probable was 40% this and 60% that." It's like giving 40% of one's vote to one political candidate and 60% to another. There are occasions when one simply has to decide on a single answer. Hence, the principle implied by L12C3 is that the TD and each AC member cannot vary an assigned score, only a group (the AC) that cannot agree may do so. That may not have been the intent of L12C3, going by the words "in order to do equity," but it's the limited way I would like to see L12C3 applied. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 16:25:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:25:58 +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 QAA17193 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:25:51 +1000 Received: from modem112.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.112] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Y245-0004kB-00; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:25:26 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Bridgelaws" Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 07:23:53 +0100 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 .................................................................. Views expressed by members of the WBFLC should be received as personal opinions if there is no agreed committee position on record to be quoted. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ================================ ---------- > From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu > To: Bridgelaws > Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION > Date: 15 April 1999 19:53 > > I wasn't going to say anything on this thread, but... > ++++ Oh, yes, we know the feeling.........................++++ ----------------- \x/ -------------------- Someone else said: > > (a) It is legal, ethical, honourable to attempt to deceive declarer > > by means of which card you play. > > > > (b) It is sometimes not obvious which card will deceive declarer > > effectively (otherwise nobody would have written articles about > > defensive falsecarding) > > > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in such situations is a > > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > > break in tempo. ++++ I tend to feel that the principle argued here, if valid per se, is one of those which it is difficult to exemplify in practice. There are only rare cases where the competent player does not know without need for further thought which is the more deceptive card. The player has to justify a tempo break by demonstrating the necessity of thought and why he is not able to play an obvious card smoothly. Nothing I have seen in this thread, where a player has had a choice of two touching cards, has suggested to me that the player had a problem that he would need to think about and my reaction has been that an appreciable pause "for thought" in such examples would reflect a desire to deceive by means of the pause more than by the card played. To defend the player's action in such circumstances is to publish, in my opinion, a Cheat's Charter. People with old fashioned ideas like mine will find it repugnant if a player appears to give his desire for success higher priority than his duty to opponent under Laws 73D1 and 73D2. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ deceptive play is not immediately evident to him. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 17:44:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:44:39 +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 RAA17340 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:44:31 +1000 Received: from modem27.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.27] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Y3IV-0006uI-00; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 08:44:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "BLML" , "Anne Jones" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 08:42:46 +0100 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 ................................................................. Views expressed by members of the WBFLC should be received as personal opinions if there is no agreed committee position on record to be quoted. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ================================ > From: Anne Jones > To: BLML > Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) > Date: 16 April 1999 01:16 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 9:22 AM > Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) > ---------------------- \x/ ---------------------- > An AC should not have powers that the TD does not have. I assume that if the > CTD at an event hears an appeal under L93A, he may use L12C3. What is wrong > with giving this power to his TDs who should be ruling as he would anyway. ++++ Edgar held the view that more than half of TDs were not competent to use it. I think we can agree that some ACs make a botch of it too (in our opinion, allegedly). I have great difficulty with 12C2. Inter alia use of 'most favourable' and of 'most unfavourable' has the effect of including the element of retribution in the score adjustment whereas I believe that punishment is a matter for parallel procedural penalty. Score adjustment, in my view, should seek to restore the equity as it existed in the instant before the irregularity and it is that principle that I believe should be expressed in 12C2, for TDs and ACs alike to judge. Equity is not an absolute but a balance of probabilities. I would give a non-offending side a 'safety net' by providing that they should not suffer loss on the hand, by score comparison in teams and in relation to their session average in pairs, where an adjusted score is assigned. If we could achieve this position I would no longer see a need for 12C3, but as it is there has to be an escape route from the excessively harsh 12C2. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 17:56:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:56:33 +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 RAA17383 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:56:24 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.75]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id DAA25654; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 03:51:49 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <000301be87d5$e471ce40$4b6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: , "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" , "Grattan" References: <9904132009.0SB8702@bbs.hal-pc.org><37147073.1B246E68@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990415103600.007dd240@phedre.meteo.fr> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:14:38 -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 From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort | This is a very hard position you take. When a player intents to deceive | via the hesitation, to make the opponents believe he holds what they would | not believe if he did not hesitate, everybody agrees to shoot him. When he | intents to deceive by choosing to play the card which could be the most | confusing for them, he is, at least, less guilty and if he needs some time | to do this, it can be argued he has a bridge reason for his hesitation; no | doubt Moriarty would prefer to be able to find the right play without | hesitation. | If we follow you further, as there is no causality, in this case, between | the deception and the huddle, we could infer it is unfair, even in tempo, | to play another card than the 2, on the lead of the 3, with Q1092 in dummy | and stiff A in hand. I apologize if I was misunderstood but in no way do I deny declarer's right to choose whichever card from QT92 would produce the most confusion in the minds of the defenders. However, with stiff Ace in their hand it hardly matters which card is played from dummy with respect to the trick in progress. IMO a valid bridge reason to hesitate is one where the card you play may affect the trick in progress. Moriarity should have made his guess of which card to play in tempo. Mind you, being trick one, I feel that not only declarer but also third hand may take as much time as necessary to digest the information given by the opening lead and the appearance of dummy. After the first trick is completed, players must refrain from pausing for thought when they have no problem about their play to the current trick. If they need time, the Law allows them to keep their card face up on the table and process the information provided by the cards played (or not played) to the current trick. 'demonstrable bridge reason' is an interesting phrase and for me, therein lies the main topic for discussion. John From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 18:00:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 18:00:57 +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 SAA17409 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 18:00:47 +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 <19990416080030.ZQEZ6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 01:00:30 -0700 Message-ID: <3716EF2E.FBE89CFF@home.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 01:05:02 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <8ekmleA66UF3EwLR@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > I strongly feel that if one is faced with MI to opponents or UI to > partner, one should resolve the MI and put up with the consequences of > the UI. John - please be careful and don't reopen "Herman's Box" so soon after we (temporarily I'm sure) closed the discussion about his "school". :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 19:10:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:10:09 +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 TAA17566 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:10:03 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA16587 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:09:23 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Apr 99 10:08 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception 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: Don Kersey wrote: > > Tim West-Meads noted a mistake in the original presentation of the > problem. > The position at trick 7, when South led a low club towards dummy's 10, > was > in fact: > > J10 > K654 > - > 10 > Q853 A74 > - - > - Q98 > QJ7 5 > K96 > 8 > - > 842 > > declarer having led the heart J on the first round of trumps (preparing > to > pick up A1093 with West if necessary), so two top trumps had been > expended > to draw the opponents' pieces. This doesn't affect any of the analysis > performed to date, so far as I can see, although from another comment by > Tim, I should also point out that both defenders know declarer has the > missing trump, since opener's acceptance of the transfer after East's > double guaranteed at least 3 trumps. West knows that declarer has the outstanding trump because a third round wasn't drawn when the HQ won in dummy and thus the C7 is not worthy of consideration. Had South led a small trump on the first round and won the second with the J then West would only know that South had "shown" 3 trumps (and misplayed if he had only 2). When the defence is without hope if oppos have what they have shown it is surely legitimate to contemplate possible layouts where they have not got what they promised. After all a bid is a "promise to partner" not a "guarantee to opponents". That said, and now that I understand the previous play, I do not now think that West had a genuine (long pause) bridge problem on the small club lead so an adjustment is in order. A short pause to reach these conclusions would not, IMO, be an issue. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 19:19:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:19:03 +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 TAA17596 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:18:56 +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; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:17:47 +0100 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 KAA00660 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:16:01 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <199904151823.OAA02313@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:13:15 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Jeremy Rickard > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in [falsecard] situations is a > > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > > break in tempo. > > I'm not sure whether Jeremy and I disagree or not. > > If the player can demonstrate a reason for believing one card will > be more deceptive than the other, then I agree it's a genuine bridge > problem. This is the "Moriarty" case. > > If, on the other hand, the player has only a vague feeling that one > card or another might be more deceptive and cannot demonstrate a bridge > reason for preferring one or the other, there is no bridge problem. > This we might call the "which card of equals" case, although of course > it applies more generally. > > Finally, thinking about "Where did I park the car?" or which card to > play from a singleton never qualifies as a bridge problem. I think we agree. I should have said "deciding which card ... *can be* a genuine bridge problem*" rather than "... *is* a genuine ...". Jeremy. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 19:45:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:45:53 +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 TAA17713 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:45:48 +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; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:42:47 +0100 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 KAA01188 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:40:55 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <000301be87d5$e471ce40$4b6199d0@john> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:38:09 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 John A. Mac Gregor wrote: > I apologize if I was misunderstood but in no way do I deny declarer's right > to > choose whichever card from QT92 would produce the most confusion in the > minds of the defenders. However, with stiff Ace in their hand it hardly > matters > which card is played from dummy with respect to the trick in progress. > IMO a valid bridge reason to hesitate is one where the card you play may > affect the > trick in progress. I can't see any legal or ethical basis for this. Suppose declarer has to decide whether to unblock a high card from hand (on a trick already won in dummy) because of possible entry problems later in the hand. His decision doesn't affect the trick in progress, but might it not be a valid bridge reason to hesitate? > Moriarity should have made his guess of which card to > play in tempo. If it's just a guess, sure. But if it is a decision that requires thought: weighing up the evidence from the bidding and defence, then I maintain it's a valid reason for thinking. > Mind you, being trick one, ... I think I pointed out the "trick one" aspect when I first posted the anecdote. Let's not allow that to confuse the issue for the purposes of this discussion: suppose that opening leader cashed a side ace and then switched unexpectedly to this suit, or something like that. Jeremy. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 19:48:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:48:47 +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 TAA17732 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:48:39 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-159.uunet.be [194.7.14.159]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04146 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:47:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <371599BC.8E91C7BD@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:48:12 +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: LAW 73D-F References: <9904140956.0DZ2F00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >Does anybody here think Holmes was wrong? [Ignore the fact that this was > >at trick one, so Moriarty was entitled to think before playing from > >dummy anyway.] > > Demonstrable bridge reason? He seems to have one, though getting it > past an AC might be tricky. > Of course he has one. Deception (legal one) is an integral part of bridge, so the choice between Q and 10 is a bridge reason. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 19:48:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:48:49 +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 TAA17733 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:48:42 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-159.uunet.be [194.7.14.159]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04159 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:47:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37159B09.87D0937F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:53:45 +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: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception References: <01be86ba$ddf03aa0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > A few months ago, this problem was identified, and BLML generally and > the English L&EC accepted the idea that 'split' scores would refer to > the two sides getting non-balancing scores, and scores under L12C3 would > be referred to as 'weighted' adjustments. > I second this motion. They conform with my intuitive feel for the English language and the Laws of Bridge and what I know of Calculation. If the ACBL would officially endorse this too, then we can put these words in some dictionary. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 19:49:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:49:05 +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 TAA17755 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:48:55 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-159.uunet.be [194.7.14.159]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04242 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:48:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3716EF6F.E99CFCAD@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:06:07 +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: carry-over formulae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Every year again and again the same discussion props up. When establishing the regulations for the national pairs championships, a decision has to be made concerning the carry-over. I would like to know how this problem is dealt with around the world. So if any of you are intimately aware of the regulations for tournaments of the kind I mean, please inform me of your formula for carry-over. I will explain what I mean by filling out the questionnaire myself : Below that is an empty form. Please fill out and mail me privately. -- Name of tournament : Belgian National Open Pairs Type of entry : pairs selected by the 2 member leagues Number of Pairs : 54 Number of Boards played in first stage : 54 Number of Pairs qualified for second stage : 22 Number of Pairs automatically qualified for second stage : none Number of Pairs in second stage : 22 Number of Boards played in second stage : 63 Carry-Over : Yes Carry-Over Formula : percentage of first stage counts as half a session of the second stage. Carry-Over Weight in Number of Boards : 10.5 (half of a 21-board session) Carry-Over for automatically qualified pairs : not applicable -- Name of tournament : Type of entry : open / selected by ___ / by invitation Number of Pairs : Number of Boards played in first stage : Number of Pairs qualified for second stage : Number of Pairs automatically qualified for second stage : none / ____ Number of Pairs in second stage : Number of Boards played in second stage : Carry-Over : Yes / No Carry-Over Formula : percentage of first stage counts as ____ a session of the second stage. Carry-Over Weight in Number of Boards : Carry-Over for automatically qualified pairs : not applicable / ____ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 19:49:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:49:04 +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 TAA17747 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:48:53 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-159.uunet.be [194.7.14.159]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04218 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:48:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37159EC1.3613FE06@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:09:37 +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: LAW 73D-F References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > In the book "Dormer on Deduction", Dr.Watson tells Sherlock Holmes > about a hand he defended against Moriarty. In a trump contract, > Moriarty had singleton ace in the side-suit that was led, with > QTxx in dummy. He wanted to encourage a continuation, so > wanted to > (a) play the Q if RHO had the K, and > (b) play the T if RHO had the J, > so that the defence might think they had a trick to cash in > this suit when they regained the lead. > > He thought for a long time about which was more likely, and got it > right. Dr.Watson was duly deceived, and was highly indignant, but > Holmes persuaded him that on this occasion Moriarty had done nothing > wrong. > > This is probably the most subtle ethical point I've seen discussed in a > bridge book. > > Does anybody here think Holmes was wrong? [Ignore the fact that this was > at trick one, so Moriarty was entitled to think before playing from > dummy anyway.] > Of course nothing wrong. It is quite proper to deceive by playing the Queen or Ten to this trick, and since there is a bridge reason for the choice between either, it is not improper to think about which card to falsecard with. When all is said and done, it was not the pause that misled defense, it was the play of the card that did this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 20:01:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:01:55 +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 UAA17805 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:01:48 +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 <19990416100141.BPG6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 03:01:41 -0700 Message-ID: <37170B96.91E7B0E0@home.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 03:06:14 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > I have great difficulty with 12C2. Inter alia use of 'most > favourable' > and of 'most unfavourable' has the effect of including the element of > retribution in the score adjustment whereas I believe that punishment > is a > matter for parallel procedural penalty. Score adjustment, in my view, > should > seek to restore the equity as it existed in the instant before the > irregularity > and it is that principle that I believe should be expressed in 12C2, I don't see this as a problem for the simple reason that implicit in the wording is that it be applied when *more than one* outcome is possible/probable/likely. If it is fairly obvious what would have happened absent the infraction, then that will be the adjusted score as per L12C2, we have restored equity, and noone has been "punished". Actually, what you seem to want can be achieved by scrapping C2 altogether and only have C1 and C3 (slightly modified), but I have a sneeking feeling a certain NCBO would not be too happy doing that! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 20:19:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:19:12 +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 UAA17908 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:19:02 +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; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:17:50 +0100 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 LAA01803 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:14:02 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <199904151853.NAA19301@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:11:16 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 Thu, 15 Apr 1999 13:53:53 -0500 (CDT) cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in such situations is a > > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > > break in tempo. > > Jeremy. > > > > I do not think the second half of 'c' follows from the first. > When a player's goal is to deceive, he must take care in those situations > where the _hesitation_ has a significantly greater deceptive power than > the deceptive play itself! If, in the Moriarty case, the act of the > hesitation itself is more likely to deceive than the play of the T or Q, > then I do not think the decision of whether to play the T or Q counts as a > 'valid reason for a break in tempo'. In other words, I think there are > cases in which the illegal deception [per L73D1] is damaging enough to > override the legal deception [per L73E, et al]. Players must be > 'particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the > benefit of their side'--and noticeable hesitations in order to plan > intricate falsecards as surely such cases. > > -Grant Sterling I don't see how the fact that you are planning an intricate falsecard is related to whether or not the variation may work to the benefit of your side. Whether I am planning a falsecard or planning a compound squeeze, my opponents might draw the wrong conclusion from my hesitation. This is regrettable, and I would prefer to make all my falsecards and play all my compound squeezes (I wish!) in tempo, but I'm only human. In both cases the opponents could in principle work out that the possible explanations for my hesitation include the actual one: it might have occurred to Dr.Watson that Moriarty still had something to gain by choosing the correct honour from dummy even if he had the singleton ace. In both cases I may have a demonstrable bridge reason for my hesitation: my choice of card is likely to affect the success of the contract, and it requires thought to decide which card is best. Unless you regard falsecards as being on a lower ethical plane than compound squeezes, I don't see what the significant difference is between the two cases. Jeremy. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 21:45:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:45:37 +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 VAA18166 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:45:30 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-40.uunet.be [194.7.13.40]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20615 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:44:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37171067.7CC5B96E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:26:47 +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: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <199904151823.OAA02313@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In general, I agree with what Jeremy wrote (as quoted by Steve) Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Jeremy Rickard > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in [falsecard] situations is a > > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > > break in tempo. > > I'm not sure whether Jeremy and I disagree or not. > > If the player can demonstrate a reason for believing one card will > be more deceptive than the other, then I agree it's a genuine bridge > problem. This is the "Moriarty" case. > > If, on the other hand, the player has only a vague feeling that one > card or another might be more deceptive and cannot demonstrate a bridge > reason for preferring one or the other, there is no bridge problem. > This we might call the "which card of equals" case, although of course > it applies more generally. > > Finally, thinking about "Where did I park the car?" or which card to > play from a singleton never qualifies as a bridge problem. Jeremy's statement is true, but one should not go too far in it. When a player, over declarer's lead of the Queen, with Ace Jack on the table, starts thinking about which of the small ones he will falsecard with, Jeremy's statement is no longer true. There has to be a certain dosage to all these principles. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 21:45:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:45:39 +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 VAA18168 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:45:33 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-40.uunet.be [194.7.13.40]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20623 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:44:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3717163C.B22D7C4F@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:51:40 +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: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) References: <01be879e$4f6bcd00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <005701be87bb$ea6256e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > Not only is it possible, but it is desirable. > > Perhaps it *is* possible, if proper guidelines for L12C3 are issued and > enforced. What I meant is that ZA's who accept L12C3 seem incapable of > controlling the decisions that are made in the name of L12C3, which is > interpreted by some as giving carte blanche to ACs to do anything they > wish. I'm only going by what happened in Lille, as I have no knowledge > of other L12C3 implementations. > Marv seems to think there is a vast amount of data on this subject. I don't think there is. The ACBL have never accepted L12C3, nor it's predecessor, the imfamous footnote. So they cannot be saying that ZA's are incapable of controlling AC's. I have very little evidence that European Comittees use L12C3 overmuch. What happened at Lille that was so erroneous as to warrant the scrapping of a Law that is intended to give more equitable rulings ? OK, maybe some AC got it's ruling wrong, but I don't believe that is reason enought to throw L12C3 out. Rather, guidelines should be given as to the type of situations in which L12C3 can come into play. One such guideline could be (IMHO) that the first decision that NO's must make after the infraction shall be dealt with according to L12C2 : the best possible action counts. Only for later bidding or play sequences, where it is impossible to determine what would have happened barring the infraction, and where the infraction no longer caused damage, do we give weighted scores according to L12C3. An example of what I mean. 1NT pass pass pass. Now it turns out 1NT is 8-10, but unalerted. The first decision from opponents about passing is turned around (100%), no problem. But if the chance of them reaching slam is put at 30%, a good L12C3 score would be 40% of slam and 60% of game. > By subordinating L12C3 to L12C2, I mean that varied scores should still > represent the most favorable result that was likely for the NOs if the > infraction had not occurred, the variance only coming from a lack of > unanimity on the AC as to what that result would be. Same for the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable > I do not think lack of unanimity is a good reason for weighted scores. One member thinks they would reach slam, two don't, so let's make it 33% of slam - that is not a good decision. What might be done is : one member thinks they would reach slam 50% of the time, the others think it is only 20% - let's put it at 30% to reach a consensus. But then still, all members must be able to live with the 30% figure (I would guess they could). > Perhaps the idea is that each person, TD or AC member, has to decide on > a single assigned score for each side. It's hard for me to imagine a > person saying, "Well, the most unfavorable result at all probable was > 40% this and 60% that." It's like giving 40% of one's vote to one > political candidate and 60% to another. What's so problematic about that ? Apart from it going contrary to the one man - one vote principle. But if say in a Company meeting, you hold a number of votes, why should you not be able to split these votes ? But that has nothing to do with the issue. > There are occasions when one > simply has to decide on a single answer. Hence, the principle implied by > L12C3 is that the TD and each AC member cannot vary an assigned score, > only a group (the AC) that cannot agree may do so. That may not have > been the intent of L12C3, going by the words "in order to do equity," > but it's the limited way I would like to see L12C3 applied. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com You are wrong Marv, in thinking that weighted scores reflect the different votes from a committee. Rather it reflects the fact that the uncertain outcome of the processes following the infraction need not be influenced by it, and therefor the score should not be returned to 'the best possible'. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 21:51:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:51:20 +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 VAA18209 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:51:12 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-40.uunet.be [194.7.13.40]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21641 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:50:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37171067.7CC5B96E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:26:47 +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: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <199904151823.OAA02313@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In general, I agree with what Jeremy wrote (as quoted by Steve) Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Jeremy Rickard > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in [falsecard] situations is a > > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > > break in tempo. > > I'm not sure whether Jeremy and I disagree or not. > > If the player can demonstrate a reason for believing one card will > be more deceptive than the other, then I agree it's a genuine bridge > problem. This is the "Moriarty" case. > > If, on the other hand, the player has only a vague feeling that one > card or another might be more deceptive and cannot demonstrate a bridge > reason for preferring one or the other, there is no bridge problem. > This we might call the "which card of equals" case, although of course > it applies more generally. > > Finally, thinking about "Where did I park the car?" or which card to > play from a singleton never qualifies as a bridge problem. Jeremy's statement is true, but one should not go too far in it. When a player, over declarer's lead of the Queen, with Ace Jack on the table, starts thinking about which of the small ones he will falsecard with, Jeremy's statement is no longer true. There has to be a certain dosage to all these principles. -- HeX-Mozilla-Status: 0009n Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 21:51:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:51:20 +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 VAA18210 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:51:13 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-40.uunet.be [194.7.13.40]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA21653 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:50:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3717163C.B22D7C4F@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:51:40 +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: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) References: <01be879e$4f6bcd00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <005701be87bb$ea6256e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > Not only is it possible, but it is desirable. > > Perhaps it *is* possible, if proper guidelines for L12C3 are issued and > enforced. What I meant is that ZA's who accept L12C3 seem incapable of > controlling the decisions that are made in the name of L12C3, which is > interpreted by some as giving carte blanche to ACs to do anything they > wish. I'm only going by what happened in Lille, as I have no knowledge > of other L12C3 implementations. > Marv seems to think there is a vast amount of data on this subject. I don't think there is. The ACBL have never accepted L12C3, nor it's predecessor, the imfamous footnote. So they cannot be saying that ZA's are incapable of controlling AC's. I have very little evidence that European Comittees use L12C3 overmuch. What happened at Lille that was so erroneous as to warrant the scrapping of a Law that is intended to give more equitable rulings ? OK, maybe some AC got it's ruling wrong, but I don't believe that is reason enought to throw L12C3 out. Rather, guidelines should be given as to the type of situations in which L12C3 can come into play. One such guideline could be (IMHO) that the first decision that NO's must make after the infraction shall be dealt with according to L12C2 : the best possible action counts. Only for later bidding or play sequences, where it is impossible to determine what would have happened barring the infraction, and where the infraction no longer caused damage, do we give weighted scores according to L12C3. An example of what I mean. 1NT pass pass pass. Now it turns out 1NT is 8-10, but unalerted. The first decision from opponents about passing is turned around (100%), no problem. But if the chance of them reaching slam is put at 30%, a good L12C3 score would be 40% of slam and 60% of game. > By subordinating L12C3 to L12C2, I mean that varied scores should still > represent the most favorable result that was likely for the NOs if the > infraction had not occurred, the variance only coming from a lack of > unanimity on the AC as to what that result would be. Same for the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable > I do not think lack of unanimity is a good reason for weighted scores. One member thinks they would reach slam, two don't, so let's make it 33% of slam - that is not a good decision. What might be done is : one member thinks they would reach slam 50% of the time, the others think it is only 20% - let's put it at 30% to reach a consensus. But then still, all members must be able to live with the 30% figure (I would guess they could). > Perhaps the idea is that each person, TD or AC member, has to decide on > a single assigned score for each side. It's hard for me to imagine a > person saying, "Well, the most unfavorable result at all probable was > 40% this and 60% that." It's like giving 40% of one's vote to one > political candidate and 60% to another. What's so problematic about that ? Apart from it going contrary to the one man - one vote principle. But if say in a Company meeting, you hold a number of votes, why should you not be able to split these votes ? But that has nothing to do with the issue. > There are occasions when one > simply has to decide on a single answer. Hence, the principle implied by > L12C3 is that the TD and each AC member cannot vary an assigned score, > only a group (the AC) that cannot agree may do so. That may not have > been the intent of L12C3, going by the words "in order to do equity," > but it's the limited way I would like to see L12C3 applied. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com You are wrong Marv, in thinking that weighted scores reflect the different votes from a committee. Rather it reflects the fact that the uncertain outcome of the processes following the infraction need not be influenced by it, and therefor the score should not be returned to 'the best possible'. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 22:40:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:40:46 +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 WAA18453 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:40:38 +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 MAA27320 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:40:02 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 MAA21291 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:38:13 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990416144020.007d6e30@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:40:20 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <000301be87d5$e471ce40$4b6199d0@john> References: <9904132009.0SB8702@bbs.hal-pc.org> <37147073.1B246E68@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990415103600.007dd240@phedre.meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:14 15/04/99 -0300, John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director wrote: >I apologize if I was misunderstood but in no way do I deny declarer's right >to >choose whichever card from QT92 would produce the most confusion in the >minds of the defenders. However, with stiff Ace in their hand it hardly >matters >which card is played from dummy with respect to the trick in progress. >IMO a valid bridge reason to hesitate is one where the card you play may >affect the >trick in progress. Would you suggest it would be unethical to hesitate whether to discard a club or a heart when opponent plays a spade and you haven't any more to follow? In both cases, the card played can't affect the play in progress but may affect one of the next ones. In both cases, the play may present a bridge problem, and, as so, may be foreseen by an opponent trying to understand the cause of the huddle. 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 Apr 16 22:54:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:54:00 +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 WAA18485 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:53:53 +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 10Y87o-000HO3-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:53:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:31:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <000301be87d5$e471ce40$4b6199d0@john> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >Suppose declarer has to decide whether to unblock a high card from hand >(on a trick already won in dummy) because of possible entry problems >later in the hand. His decision doesn't affect the trick in progress, >but might it not be a valid bridge reason to hesitate? If he is wondering whether to unblock on this trick then his decision certainly does affect the trick in progress! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 22:54:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:54:08 +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 WAA18492 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:54:02 +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 10Y87r-000HO2-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:53:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:01:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception 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: >Don Kersey wrote: >> >> Tim West-Meads noted a mistake in the original presentation of the >> problem. >> The position at trick 7, when South led a low club towards dummy's 10, >> was >> in fact: >> >> J10 >> K654 >> - >> 10 >> Q853 A74 >> - - >> - Q98 >> QJ7 5 >> K96 >> 8 >> - >> 842 >> >> declarer having led the heart J on the first round of trumps (preparing >> to >> pick up A1093 with West if necessary), so two top trumps had been >> expended >> to draw the opponents' pieces. This doesn't affect any of the analysis >> performed to date, so far as I can see, although from another comment by >> Tim, I should also point out that both defenders know declarer has the >> missing trump, since opener's acceptance of the transfer after East's >> double guaranteed at least 3 trumps. > >West knows that declarer has the outstanding trump because a third round >wasn't drawn when the HQ won in dummy and thus the C7 is not worthy of >consideration. One of the arguments that I see repeatedly [twice in the Appeals from Orlando I have just commented on] is that because of 'such and such', 'so and so' is not worthy of consideration: here playing a small club because declarer has the last trump. How does the player know that 'such and such' is so? By thinking about it, and perhaps then checking it in his own mind - this may take time. In this case, logic shows that declarer has the trump, but perhaps it is a demonstrable bridge reason that the defender is [a][ working that out and [b] re-checking it. This is not a comment on my view on this problem, but a generalised comment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 22:53:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:53:54 +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 WAA18480 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 22:53:47 +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 10Y87o-0004lF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:53:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:29:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) References: <37170B96.91E7B0E0@home.com> In-Reply-To: <37170B96.91E7B0E0@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >Grattan wrote: > >> I have great difficulty with 12C2. Inter alia use of 'most >> favourable' >> and of 'most unfavourable' has the effect of including the element of >> retribution in the score adjustment whereas I believe that punishment > is a >> matter for parallel procedural penalty. Score adjustment, in my view, > should >> seek to restore the equity as it existed in the instant before the >> irregularity >> and it is that principle that I believe should be expressed in 12C2, > >I don't see this as a problem for the simple reason that implicit in the >wording is that it be applied when *more than one* outcome is >possible/probable/likely. If it is fairly obvious what would have >happened absent the infraction, then that will be the adjusted score as >per L12C2, we have restored equity, and noone has been "punished". So often this does not happen. Suppose you get a case where East-West have a spade fit and a diamond fit, and can make a grand slam based on the double fit. The bidding starts with an opening 1S by West, followed by a Ghestem 3C, correctly showing hearts and clubs. No doubt this would have made it easier to bid the slam, but unfortunately the partner described it as hearts and diamonds. East and West both underbid slightly because they thought their diamond honours were not working, and the final result on the board was 4S+3. What is a fair ruling? Let us say, for argument's sake, that you check on frequencies, this being a board played many times. 25% of pairs have bid the grand, 70% the small slam, 5% have got it wrong in some way. If you poll the hand around you will get much the same figures. The actual pair concerned is a medium pair, and will admit to a pretty hit-or-miss approach to slam bidding. If the board had been played out without the infraction, then the score would probably have been 6S+1. So some might see this as a fair ruling, but East-West will argue [correctly] that while, on balance, they would likely have missed the grand, they might have bid it, and their chance to have a go at bidding it was removed by the MI. How about a ruling of 7S=, because East-West might have bid it? Well, is this fair on North-South? Without the infraction, they would probably have suffered 6S+1. The infraction was not intentional [if it were it should be dealt with by other methods anyway] and ruling 7S= has *not* restored equity: as Grattan said, it has involved a punitive element. How about a ruling of two-thirds 6S+1, one-third 7S=? The great thing about this ruling is that it is an equity ruling: it represents what would probably have happened without the infraction. The main disadvantage that people have quoted on this list are [a] lack of faith in letting the TD/ACs give such rulings and [b] its unacceptability to the players. As to [a], all I have suggested that the ACBL do is to allow L12C3 subject to stringent regulation: my proviso is always forgotten when this subject is brought up. I cannot answer for the WBF, but in England/Wales where out ACs are controlled and looked at, we do not have a problem. As for [b], *if* the players have faith in the ACs, they usually find this sort of ruling fairer. What would the ruling be on the example hand? In Europe, a TD would rule 7S= for both sides. In Europe, an AC would rule 35% 7S=, 65% 6S+1 for both sides. In NAmerica, the correct ruling is 7S= for North-South, 6S+1 for East- West. I know which I would prefer as a player! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 16 23:33:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 23:33:29 +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 XAA18693 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 23:33:23 +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; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:32:51 +0100 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 OAA06484 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:30:07 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 14:27:22 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 David Stevenson wrote: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > >Suppose declarer has to decide whether to unblock a high card from hand > >(on a trick already won in dummy) because of possible entry problems > >later in the hand. His decision doesn't affect the trick in progress, > >but might it not be a valid bridge reason to hesitate? > > If he is wondering whether to unblock on this trick then his decision > certainly does affect the trick in progress! Well, yes. But no more than the decision to play Q or T from QTxx opposite singleton ace does. It doesn't affect who wins the trick in progress or with which card, which I guess was what I assumed John meant by "doesn't affect the trick in progress". --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 01:13:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:13:40 +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 BAA21229 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:13:29 +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 LAA21893 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA05449; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904161511.LAA05449@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBLScore 6.02 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi. This has little to do with bridge laws, so I apologize in advance. I just wanted to tell everyone about ACBLScore 6.02, the latest version of the program the ACBL provides to clubs and units. In particular, I want to bring to your attention a new feature. This program now runs teamgames. It will not only score the games, but it will also do all the pairings and paperwork for you. I've now used it twice, once for a ten table game, and again for a twenty table game, and it is both accurate and amazingly fast. Indeed, the players were very surprised when, no sooner had they dropped off the last of the results, than the call went out, "Captains, get your assignments, please!". Two other features of this program: it is very easy to use, and it will run on an XT 640 or better. I have been told it was used very successfully at the Vancouver NABC. It does have a small glitch. When running anything but a club game (such as a CC or a charity) it will only give out club masterpoints. However, you can get around this at the end of the game by reverting back to manual pairing mode (F9, then set up the game; when it asks "do you want ACBLScore to do the pairings?" answer no) and then F5 score the game. This problem has been brought to the attention of Jim Lopuchinsky (sp?) the creater of the program, and will be corrected in version 6.03. ACBLScore can be downloaded from the ACBL website (WWW.acbl.com, I think). The ACBL may have done many things wrong; ACBLScore is not one of them. It is impressive. Tony (aka ac342) ps. I have nothing to do with this program, other than use it; and I again apologize for writing to the BLML on a matter not directly linked to its purpose. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 01:41:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:41:58 +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 BAA21332 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:41:51 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA09589 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:37:39 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904161537.KAA09589@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:37:39 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in such situations is a > > > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > > > break in tempo. > > > > Jeremy. > > > > > > > I do not think the second half of 'c' follows from the first. > > When a player's goal is to deceive, he must take care in those situations > > where the _hesitation_ has a significantly greater deceptive power than > > the deceptive play itself! If, in the Moriarty case, the act of the > > hesitation itself is more likely to deceive than the play of the T or Q, > > then I do not think the decision of whether to play the T or Q counts as a > > 'valid reason for a break in tempo'. In other words, I think there are > > cases in which the illegal deception [per L73D1] is damaging enough to > > override the legal deception [per L73E, et al]. Players must be > > 'particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the > > benefit of their side'--and noticeable hesitations in order to plan > > intricate falsecards as surely such cases. > > > > -Grant Sterling > > I don't see how the fact that you are planning an intricate falsecard is > related to whether or not the variation may work to the benefit of your > side. Whether I am planning a falsecard or planning a compound squeeze, > my opponents might draw the wrong conclusion from my hesitation. This is > regrettable, and I would prefer to make all my falsecards and play all > my compound squeezes (I wish!) in tempo, but I'm only human. I do not think that all falsecard sequences are cases in which the players can reasonably expect to be in 'situations in which variations may work to the benefit of their side', but I'd bet there are a whole lot more cases where this is true than cases where a tempo variation can be expected to work to my advantage while I'm planning a compound squeeze. [Or, anyway, the hypothetical me who actually pulls off compound squeezes. :)] L73D1 is designed for cases where a player can reasonably foresee that a tempo variation will mislead opponents to their detriment. When you are trying to mislead your opponents about your holding, then such situations become increasingly likely. > In both cases the opponents could in principle work out that the > possible explanations for my hesitation include the actual one: it > might have occurred to Dr.Watson that Moriarty still had something > to gain by choosing the correct honour from dummy even if he had the > singleton ace. It might have, yes. But the law says we are supposed to take care to avoid hesitations that are likely to mislead even if it is possible opponents will take care not to be misled. > In both cases I may have a demonstrable bridge reason for my hesitation: > my choice of card is likely to affect the success of the contract, and > it requires thought to decide which card is best. > > Unless you regard falsecards as being on a lower ethical plane than > compound squeezes, I don't see what the significant difference is > between the two cases. It is the likelihood that the tempo variation will mislead which matters, and I think this is far more common in falsecarding situations than in squeezes. [Indeed, I cannot off the top of my head think of a situation where a pause to work out a squeeze could be expected to deceive opponents to their detriment.] > Jeremy. > > --------------------------------- > Jeremy Rickard -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 02:17:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:17:26 +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 CAA21609 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:17:19 +1000 Received: from default ([12.75.42.48]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990416161641.HSWM13524@default>; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:16:41 +0000 From: "Richard F Beye" To: , Subject: Re: ACBLScore 6.02 Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:16:20 -0500 Message-ID: <01be8824$767c2440$cb294b0c@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 6.02 has a glitch in some round-robin situations. It has been repaired. 6.04 is available today (4/16). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 02:19:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:19:49 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21632 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:19:43 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial75.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.75]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA08356; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:19:14 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <37170B96.91E7B0E0@home.com> <37170B96.91E7B0E0@home.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:17:01 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 7:29 AM -0400 4/16/99, David Stevenson wrote: > Let us say, for argument's sake, that you check on frequencies, this >being a board played many times. 25% of pairs have bid the grand, 70% >the small slam, 5% have got it wrong in some way. If you poll the hand >around you will get much the same figures. The actual pair concerned is >a medium pair, and will admit to a pretty hit-or-miss approach to slam >bidding. ... > In Europe, a TD would rule 7S= for both sides. Why? I'm not familiar with the applicable guidelines. > In Europe, an AC would rule 35% 7S=, 65% 6S+1 for both sides. But the percentages are derived from the committee's judgement, not from a formula, correct? So another committee might award 29% 7S=, 71% 6S+1 for both sides? > In NAmerica, the correct ruling is 7S= for North-South, 6S+1 for East- >West. Or perhaps 7S= for both, depending on the TD's judgement of how likely EW were to bid the grand, given correct information. The fact that 25% of the field bid the grand need not be relevant, since presumably the field did not all face a Ghestem 3C. > I know which I would prefer as a player! I give up. Which, and why, and does it matter which partnership, if either, you're a member of? - Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 02:41:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:41:16 +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 CAA21727 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:41:10 +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 LAA24876 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:41:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FU2100T Fri, 16 Apr 99 11:16:18 Message-ID: <9904161116.0FU2100@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 16 Apr 99 11:16:18 Subject: SPLIT/WEI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is no revoke penalty for dummy. There are no penalty cards for dummy. There are no penalty cards for declarer. Latitude is given to pairs with complicated agreements because they can't be expected to process all of their inferences in normal tempo. Latitude is given to good players a la Appeal 5. It is taking me a long time to see that the laws apply equally to all players. Roger Pewick B>>It is a poor show if the only way a contestant can achieve a fair B>result is >to appeal the ruling of the TD. B>True, but surely a correct application of the Laws must by definition be B>fair. The Laws apply to all equally! B>- Adam Wildavsky B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 02:41:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:41:32 +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 CAA21734 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:41:24 +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 LAA24877 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:41:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FU3V00U Fri, 16 Apr 99 11:16:22 Message-ID: <9904161116.0FU3V00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 16 Apr 99 11:16:22 Subject: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Several years ago i read the passage in SHBD. Because I was sympathetic to Watson I do not recall if my first impression was one of foul play but i do remember that my final impression was one of fair play. Moriarty's problem was deciding what particular honor to play RHO. This is a bridge problem and as such is justification for pause for thought, reinforced by the normal pause at T1. You know, a problem at T1 may not be a problem at T3- errr, and vice versa. There has been a tendency to take a case out of context like this one] and call it the same case. And this is not necessarily so. Universal constants are more the exception [especially in bridge] than the rule. To prove that QT9x always justifies a pause or sometimes justifies a pause or never justifies a pause would take exhaustive analysis to prove an exception. In discussion of illegal deception, best value is acheived by reducing the criteria to easily understood and applied principles that produce desired results consistently. This largely centers about what is a bridge problem [and other factors]. Figuring out how to deceive may be a problem. But if the deception would be made illegal by a vairiation in manner, then the problem can not be classed as a bridge problem. I believe that the line is drawn somewhere near that point. Roger Pewick B>From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort B>| This is a very hard position you take. When a player intents to B>deceive | via the hesitation, to make the opponents believe he holds B>what they would | not believe if he did not hesitate, everybody agrees B>to shoot him. When he | intents to deceive by choosing to play the card B>which could be the most | confusing for them, he is, at least, less B>guilty and if he needs some time | to do this, it can be argued he has a B>bridge reason for his hesitation; no | doubt Moriarty would prefer to be B>able to find the right play without | hesitation. B>| If we follow you further, as there is no causality, in this case, B>between | the deception and the huddle, we could infer it is unfair, B>even in tempo, | to play another card than the 2, on the lead of the 3, B>with Q1092 in dummy | and stiff A in hand. B>I apologize if I was misunderstood but in no way do I deny declarer's B>right to B>choose whichever card from QT92 would produce the most confusion in the B>minds of the defenders. However, with stiff Ace in their hand it hardly B>matters B>which card is played from dummy with respect to the trick in progress. B>IMO a valid bridge reason to hesitate is one where the card you play may B>affect the B>trick in progress. Moriarity should have made his guess of which card B>to play in B>tempo. Mind you, being trick one, I feel that not only declarer but B>also third hand B>may take as much time as necessary to digest the information given by B>the opening B>lead and the appearance of dummy. B>After the first trick is completed, players must refrain from pausing B>for thought when B>they have no problem about their play to the current trick. If they B>need time, the Law B>allows them to keep their card face up on the table and process the B>information B>provided by the cards played (or not played) to the current trick. B>'demonstrable bridge reason' is an interesting phrase and for me, B>therein lies the B>main topic for discussion. B>John B> Rog From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 02:41:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:41:47 +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 CAA21755 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:41:41 +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 LAA24881 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:41:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FU5Q00V Fri, 16 Apr 99 11:16:25 Message-ID: <9904161116.0FU5Q00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 16 Apr 99 11:16:25 Subject: SPLIT/WEI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Precedence: bulk B>"Marvin L. French" wrote: B>> B>> > B>> > Not only is it possible, but it is desirable. B>> B>> Perhaps it *is* possible, if proper guidelines for L12C3 are issued B>and > enforced. What I meant is that ZA's who accept L12C3 seem B>incapable of > controlling the decisions that are made in the name of B>L12C3, which is > interpreted by some as giving carte blanche to ACs to B>do anything they > wish. I'm only going by what happened in Lille, as I B>have no knowledge > of other L12C3 implementations. B>> B>Marv seems to think there is a vast amount of data on this B>subject. I don't think there is. B>The ACBL have never accepted L12C3, nor it's predecessor, B>the imfamous footnote. So they cannot be saying that ZA's B>are incapable of controlling AC's. B>I have very little evidence that European Comittees use B>L12C3 overmuch. B>What happened at Lille that was so erroneous as to warrant B>the scrapping of a Law that is intended to give more B>equitable rulings ? B>OK, maybe some AC got it's ruling wrong, but I don't believe B>that is reason enought to throw L12C3 out. Rather, B>guidelines should be given as to the type of situations in B>which L12C3 can come into play. B>One such guideline could be (IMHO) that the first decision B>that NO's must make after the infraction shall be dealt with B>according to L12C2 : the best possible action counts. Only B>for later bidding or play sequences, where it is impossible B>to determine what would have happened barring the B>infraction, and where the infraction no longer caused B>damage, do we give weighted scores according to L12C3. B>An example of what I mean. B>1NT pass pass pass. B>Now it turns out 1NT is 8-10, but unalerted. B>The first decision from opponents about passing is turned B>around (100%), no problem. But if the chance of them B>reaching slam is put at 30%, a good L12C3 score would be 40% B>of slam and 60% of game. If it is felt that the probability of reaching a good slam is about 30%, would not the difference between 30% and 40% be punishment as opposed to equity? If punishment is to be meted out, it ought to be done by penalty, not adjustment. Roger Pewick -s- B>-- B>Herman DE WAEL B>Antwerpen Belgium B>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 04:02:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:02:54 +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 EAA22004 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:02:47 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA01350 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 19:02:12 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Apr 99 19:01 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception 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 > > > >West knows that declarer has the outstanding trump because a third > round >wasn't drawn when the HQ won in dummy and thus the C7 is not > worthy of >consideration. > > One of the arguments that I see repeatedly [twice in the Appeals from > Orlando I have just commented on] is that because of 'such and such', > 'so and so' is not worthy of consideration: here playing a small club > because declarer has the last trump. > > How does the player know that 'such and such' is so? By thinking > about it, and perhaps then checking it in his own mind - this may take > time. In this case, logic shows that declarer has the trump, but > perhaps it is a demonstrable bridge reason that the defender is [a][ > working that out and [b] re-checking it. I think this is a demonstrable bridge reason for a hesitation. I was trying to differentiate between a fairly simple deduction based on the actual play and an inference based on trusting opposition bidding. I sincerely hope that, had the hesitation not been "prolonged" in the current case, far fewer people would have been willing to adjust. It also seems to me that the standard of player concerned must have a bearing. For a novice (not current case) even remembering whether the Ace and King have gone or not is often a "genuine problem"! > > This is not a comment on my view on this problem, but a generalised > comment. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 04:17:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:17:41 +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 EAA22126 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:17:36 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA29573; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:17:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00c301be8835$64415500$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: References: <3716EF6F.E99CFCAD@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: carry-over formulae Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:17:24 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman, Rather than fill out a form, I'll just quote ACBL policy as stated in the Tech files of the ACBLScore software. Hope this helps: > Every year again and again the same discussion props up. > > When establishing the regulations for the national pairs > championships, a decision has to be made concerning the > carry-over. > > I would like to know how this problem is dealt with around > the world. > > So if any of you are intimately aware of the regulations for > tournaments of the kind I mean, please inform me of your > formula for carry-over. > The carryover formula is: C = (M - m) [(Q / E) ( A x B x Q) / S] C - carryover M - matchpoints won by a pair in qualifying session(s) m - matchpoints of lowest qualifier Q - number of pairs qualified for the final E - number of pairs entered in the event A - average matchpoint score on each board in the finals B - number of boards played in qualifying session(s) S - sum of the scores made by all qualifiers To prevent an abnormal spread between the highest and lowest qualifier, carryovers are limited as follows (based on top in the finals) For one qualifying round and one final round - two board maximum spread For two qualifying rounds and one final round - three board maximum spread For two qualifying rounds and two final rounds - four board maximum spread If the formula exceeds these amounts, the formula is abandoned and the following procedure is used: Subtract the low qualifying score from the high qualifying score and divide this number into the maximum allowable carryover. The resulting factor is multiplied by the difference between a score and the low qualifying score. Thus the low qualifier will have a carryover of zero and the high qualifier will have the maximum allowable carryover. [Personal note: Carryover scores are inappropriate for two-winner games (e.g., straight Mitchell movements) that become one-winner games in the finals. The two fields in a two-winner game have played different hands, compared with different pairs, and faced different pairs. They have therefore actually played two separate games, as is recognized when qualifiers are separately selected from each field, the current ACBL practice, with no overall ranking. Permitting carryover from these separate games is analogous to permitting sport teams to carry over part of their scores from qualifying rounds into a final contest. As to the number of pairs to be qualifed, there is no set formula, except that qualifying about 50% seems to be the general goal. Qualifying pairs are set up in conveniently-sized (13 or 14 tables) sections, which means that the 50% goal (if it is one) is usually not attained. In the NAOP pairs in Vancouver, 36 tables were reduced to 14 for the finals. In Open Pairs I in Vancouver about 14 sections of 14-15 tables each in two qualifying sessions (straight Mitchells, almost all pairs switching direction for the second session) became 7 sections of 13 tables each (preduplicated boards, scored across-the-field). With all pairs switching direction for the second final session, and no arrow-switching, this is also a two-winner game, not a one-winner game. If the two fields of qualifiers were kept intact for the finals, and rankings (including winners) separately determined for each, then carryovers would make some sense. However, I believe the fields get scrambled a bit for the finals, so carryovers are not appropriate.] Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 04:29:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:29:56 +1000 Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22154 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 04:29:37 +1000 Received: from default (vp190-130.worldonline.nl [195.241.190.130]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA07690 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:29:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003401be8837$7c2486e0$82bef1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: Subject: Re: Two cards visible Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:32:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01BE8848.3D6B0800" 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 Dit is een meerdelig bericht in MIME-indeling. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BE8848.3D6B0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yesterday I posted this mail - to David only, by accident, but it was = intended for BLML: [repeated for your convenience:] >From: David Stevenson >> The defender attempts to play the D8. However, he discovers that he >>has played two cards simultaneously, the D8 and the D6. Both are >>visible [**]. How do you rule? > Anne and I gave our opinions on this case, and after that David inserted = a one-liner, but since then no more reactions have appeared. I am sure there was more to be said, though. And even if there is not, I would appreciate if David were to reveal the = snag that made him post this question ! Jac Fuchs ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BE8848.3D6B0800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yesterday I posted this = mail =20 -  to David only, by accident, but it was intended for = BLML:
 
[repeated for your convenience:]

>From: David Stevenson = <bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk= >

>> =20 The defender attempts to play the D8.  However, he discovers that=20 he
>>has played two cards simultaneously, the D8 and the = D6.  Both=20 are
>>visible [**].  How do you rule?
>

Anne = and I=20 gave our opinions on this case, and after that David inserted a=20 one-liner,
but since then no more reactions have appeared.
I am = sure there=20 was more to be said, though.
And even if there is not, I would = appreciate if=20 David were to reveal the snag that made him post this question = !

Jac=20 Fuchs
------=_NextPart_000_0031_01BE8848.3D6B0800-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 06:50:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 06:50:28 +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 GAA22672 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 06:50:20 +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 10YFYy-0007aV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:50:14 +0000 Message-ID: <7ks$4wA6I6F3EwoD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:48:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two cards visible References: <003401be8837$7c2486e0$82bef1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <003401be8837$7c2486e0$82bef1c3@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 Jac Fuchs wrote: > Yesterday I posted this mail=A0 -=A0 to David only, by accident, but i= t=20 > was intended for BLML: > =A0 > [repeated for your convenience:] > > >From: David Stevenson > > >>=A0 The defender attempts to play the D8.=A0 However, he discovers=20 > that he > >>has played two cards simultaneously, the D8 and the D6.=A0 Both are > >>visible [**].=A0 How do you rule? > > > > Anne and I gave our opinions on this case, and after that David=20 > inserted a one-liner, > but since then no more reactions have appeared. > I am sure there was more to be said, though. > And even if there is not, I would appreciate if David were to=20 > reveal the snag that made him post this question ! > > Jac Fuchs Yes, I seem to have forgotten this. According to L58B2, the player now designates which card he proposes to play. So he may designate either the D8 or the D6: the fact that he originally meant to play the D8 does not matter. Suppose he designates the D8. What happens to the D6? It will become a penalty card, but minor or major? L50B includes: "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." No doubt the D6 was exposed inadvertently. So it is a minor penalty card. Note one of the two examples given is that of playing two cards to a trick. The snag comes when the player designates the D6 to be played: is the D8 major or minor? Since he originally intended to play the D8, he did not apparently expose it accidentally, or did he? So apparently it becomes a major penalty card. Now before we get the comments about whether we can tell which was intended and mind reading and whether the Law should be this or that, let us sort the present Law out. Please read the Law as quoted above, consider, and answer the question: if the player intended to play the D8, accidentally plays the D8 and the D6, and decides to play the D6, what type of penalty card is the D8? --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 06:50:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 06:50:27 +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 GAA22671 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 06:50:19 +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 10YFYy-000D0B-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 20:50:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:35:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Split/Weighted References: <37170B96.91E7B0E0@home.com> <37170B96.91E7B0E0@home.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 7:29 AM -0400 4/16/99, David Stevenson wrote: >> Let us say, for argument's sake, that you check on frequencies, this >>being a board played many times. 25% of pairs have bid the grand, 70% >>the small slam, 5% have got it wrong in some way. If you poll the hand >>around you will get much the same figures. The actual pair concerned is >>a medium pair, and will admit to a pretty hit-or-miss approach to slam >>bidding. > >... > >> In Europe, a TD would rule 7S= for both sides. > >Why? I'm not familiar with the applicable guidelines. > >> In Europe, an AC would rule 35% 7S=, 65% 6S+1 for both sides. > >But the percentages are derived from the committee's judgement, not from a >formula, correct? So another committee might award 29% 7S=, 71% 6S+1 for >both sides? Surely. But bad Committees cause unfair rulings anyway. >> In NAmerica, the correct ruling is 7S= for North-South, 6S+1 for East- >>West. > >Or perhaps 7S= for both, depending on the TD's judgement of how likely EW >were to bid the grand, given correct information. The fact that 25% of the >field bid the grand need not be relevant, since presumably the field did >not all face a Ghestem 3C. > >> I know which I would prefer as a player! > >I give up. Which, and why, and does it matter which partnership, if either, >you're a member of? I prefer the solution that comes reasonably near to equity. No, it does not matter which partnership I belong to: I try to win at bridge by playing better -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 08:33:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 08:33:44 +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 IAA23268 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 08:33:38 +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 <19990416223332.GQBI6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:33:32 -0700 Message-ID: <3717BBCC.ACBD45BB@home.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 15:38:04 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) References: <37170B96.91E7B0E0@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > What would the ruling be on the example hand? > > In Europe, a TD would rule 7S= for both sides. > > In Europe, an AC would rule 35% 7S=, 65% 6S+1 for both sides. > > In NAmerica, the correct ruling is 7S= for North-South, 6S+1 for East- > West. > > I know which I would prefer as a player! I have no big problem with a slight amount of "punishment" becoming included in the adjusted score. I'd have a bigger problem if NOS did not get the benefit of the doubt. EW were totally robbed of their 25/35% (whatever) shot at reaching 7S=. What exactly is "equitable"? EW would get to either 6S+1 or 7S=, never [0.35x7S + 0.65x6S]. Who says this was not the time they'd actually bid the grand? Why should NS get "the same" result after commiting an infraction as all other NS's who did not commit any? In baseball, if a ball is hit and lands in a certain unplayable area it is ruled "a double", regardless if the hitter was Tony Gwynn (slow) or Quilvio Veras (fast). Noone intentionally committed an infraction. Noone knows for sure what would have happened without the irregularity. A 2 base hit is an approximation of the likely outcome. Noone seems to have a problem with these "automatic" rulings, although all know that Gwynn would probably only reach first base while Veras might've reached third. And these are guys who pay their daily bread from their sport (often based on their "stats"). Why do we in bridge have to try for an absolute "equity", which anyway doesn't exist?? All in all I'd prefer a ruling where you start in C2 by giving NS 7S=, while for EW the 6S+1 as per C2 would not be "equitable" and I'd like to go to C3 to give them a weighted score. What I have the biggest problem with is the (illegal, imo) tendency by many to say "we can't determine which of 6S+1 and 7S= would happen, so we award Av+/Av-". This is a particular problem where L12C3 is not used, so this alone is a good reason to use it. Finally, I think you have to be careful not to equate "equity" with "the odds of a result occuring". If it would be a straight 50/50 whether or not the grand would be bid, I find it more "equitable" and "fair" to award +1510/-1510 than +1260/-1260. Maybe this is just me, and I have no quarrel with others thinking differently. *However*, the very fact that "equity" and "fairness" are subjective entities where reasonable people can disagree gives all the more credibility to applying L12C2, resorting to C3 only on the rare occasions where it is clear to all AC-members that the C2 result is "not equitable". From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 11:25:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 11:25:03 +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 LAA23783 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 11:24:56 +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 10YJqi-0006zn-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:24:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:23:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two cards visible In-Reply-To: <003401be8837$7c2486e0$82bef1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003401be8837$7c2486e0$82bef1c3@default>, Jac Fuchs writes >Yesterday I posted this mail - to David only, by accident, but it was intended >for BLML: > >[repeated for your convenience:] > >>From: David Stevenson > >>> The defender attempts to play the D8. However, he discovers that he >>>has played two cards simultaneously, the D8 and the D6. Both are >>>visible [**]. How do you rule? >> > >Anne and I gave our opinions on this case, and after that David inserted a one- >liner, >but since then no more reactions have appeared. >I am sure there was more to be said, though. >And even if there is not, I would appreciate if David were to reveal the snag >that made him post this question ! > >Jac Fuchs RobinB and I were banned from posting originally but now I would like you to consider the case when the cards (in my case) are 10 and 8, or (in Robin's case) K and 4. I think it's easy, but DWS and RB aren't sure :)) Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 11:27:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 11:27:42 +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 LAA23802 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 11:27:35 +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 10YJtJ-0007AG-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:27:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 02:26:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two cards visible In-Reply-To: <7ks$4wA6I6F3EwoD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <7ks$4wA6I6F3EwoD@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip > > According to L58B2, the player now designates which card he proposes >to play. So he may designate either the D8 or the D6: the fact that he >originally meant to play the D8 does not matter. > > Suppose he designates the D8. What happens to the D6? It will become >a penalty card, but minor or major? > >L50B includes: "A single card below the rank of an honour and exposed >inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card >accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card." > > No doubt the D6 was exposed inadvertently. So it is a minor penalty >card. Note one of the two examples given is that of playing two cards >to a trick. > > The snag comes when the player designates the D6 to be played: is the >D8 major or minor? Since he originally intended to play the D8, he did >not apparently expose it accidentally, or did he? So apparently it >becomes a major penalty card. > > Now before we get the comments about whether we can tell which was >intended and mind reading and whether the Law should be this or that, >let us sort the present Law out. > > Please read the Law as quoted above, consider, and answer the >question: if the player intended to play the D8, accidentally plays the >D8 and the D6, and decides to play the D6, what type of penalty card is >the D8? > Is intent important or relevant? Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 17 23:58:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 23:58:19 +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 XAA25291 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 23:58:11 +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; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 14:58:03 +0100 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 OAA13846 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 14:54:14 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <199904161537.KAA09589@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 14:51:37 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 In reply to my: > > I don't see how the fact that you are planning an intricate falsecard is > > related to whether or not the variation may work to the benefit of your > > side. Whether I am planning a falsecard or planning a compound squeeze, > > my opponents might draw the wrong conclusion from my hesitation. This is > > regrettable, and I would prefer to make all my falsecards and play all > > my compound squeezes (I wish!) in tempo, but I'm only human. Grant Sterling wrote: > I do not think that all falsecard sequences are cases in which the > players can reasonably expect to be in 'situations in which variations may > work to the benefit of their side', but I'd bet there are a whole lot more > cases where this is true than cases where a tempo variation can be > expected to work to my advantage while I'm planning a compound squeeze. I wouldn't disagree with that. Setting aside the red herring of whether or not the "demonstrable bridge reason" is concerned with planning a falsecard, and slightly changing the subject, I'd be interested in people's opinions about this general situation: Suppose I have a genuine and demonstrable bridge reason for thinking, but it is clear to me that if I hesitate, then the opponents are likely to draw the wrong inference from my hesitation, to their disadvantage. What are my legal and ethical obligations? The relevant part of L73D1, which several people have referred to in this thread, says: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side." The law isn't very specific about what "being particularly careful" means. Jeremy. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 18 02:54:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 02:54:04 +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 CAA28267 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 02:53:57 +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 LAA02297 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 11:53:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GOE800G Sat, 17 Apr 99 11:52:18 Message-ID: <9904171152.0GOE800@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 17 Apr 99 11:52:18 Subject: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is an illegal deception perpetrated by a novice any less damaging than one by a good player? Does it really justify less redress to the other side than an illegal deception by an expert? Roger Pewick B>In-Reply-To: B>David Stevenson B>> > B>> >West knows that declarer has the outstanding trump because a third B>. >wasn't drawn when the HQ won in dummy and thus the C7 is not B>. >consideration. B>> B>> One of the arguments that I see repeatedly [twice in the Appeals B>from > Orlando I have just commented on] is that because of 'such and B>such', > 'so and so' is not worthy of consideration: here playing a B>small club > because declarer has the last trump. B>> B>> How does the player know that 'such and such' is so? By thinking B>> about it, and perhaps then checking it in his own mind - this may take B>> time. In this case, logic shows that declarer has the trump, but B>> perhaps it is a demonstrable bridge reason that the defender is [a][ B>> working that out and [b] re-checking it. B>I think this is a demonstrable bridge reason for a hesitation. I was B>trying to differentiate between a fairly simple deduction based on the B>actual play and an inference based on trusting opposition bidding. I B>sincerely hope that, had the hesitation not been "prolonged" in the B>current case, far fewer people would have been willing to adjust. B>It also seems to me that the standard of player concerned must have a B>bearing. For a novice (not current case) even remembering whether the B>Ace and King have gone or not is often a "genuine problem"! B>> B>> This is not a comment on my view on this problem, but a generalised B>> comment. B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 18 03:53:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 03:53:25 +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 DAA28384 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 03:53:18 +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; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 18:53:05 +0100 Received: (from majcr@localhost) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) id SAA14624 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Apr 1999 18:48:47 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199904171748.SAA14624@elios.maths.bris.ac.uk.> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 18:48:47 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <9904171152.0GOE800@bbs.hal-pc.org> from "r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org" at Apr 17, 99 11:52:18 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Is an illegal deception perpetrated by a novice any less damaging than one > by a good player? Does it really justify less redress to the other side > than an illegal deception by an expert? > > Roger Pewick No. But the suggestion was that the same (inadvertent) deception may be illegal (because there is no "demonstrable bridge reason") if perpetrated by an expert, but not if perpetrated by a novice, because a novice needs to think about things that are automatic to an expert. Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 18 19:10:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:10:46 +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 TAA00403 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:10:38 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-176.uunet.be [194.7.14.176]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA19670 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:10:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3719A16F.D0A46FE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:10:07 +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: A strange revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The setting : Belgian National Pairs, semi final, which is the first round where the two communities meet. East-West : a dutch couple, the only pair in the field not to speak french (and why should they) North-South : a top Belgian pair, both trying very hard to speak dutch. Declarer (changed to south for conformity) is in 2 Spades. These are the Spade and Diamond suits. The rest is immaterial, and I'm too lazy to look up the real hand. 54 ? Qxx6 A7 ? K?3 KJxxx AQ? Declarer, in dummy, waves to indicate a spade lead. East thinks he waves to diamonds and contributes the three of that suit. I have not been able to establish whether or not the spade was actually played, but dummy, declarer, and west all agree that spades were played. Declarer, angry at the bad break, plays the King and west contributes the six. Declarer now leads the Ace of Hearts. At this moment, while the previous trick is still open, Easts asks if West has no diamonds, and the revoke is discovered. At this time I am called to the table. I find that West has not played to the following trick and that the revoke has not been established, so it has to be corrected. I reserve my decision on the questions later, as in any case the revoke must be corrected. East changes her play to the seven of Spades, and South now changes his to the losing finesse on the Queen. West is in, but has lead penalties about the three of diamonds, and declarer demands diamonds and thus gets the finesse he would have difficulty in doing himself (dummy is rather short of entries). The result is down one, but I still have to give a ruling. I try to establish what really happened and after some time I find that North-South have not reacted to East's question and it is solely West who has replied that it was really a spade trick. Do you agree that I must now apply L63B (attention illegally drawn - Belgium is not in the ACBL, I must add) ? And that since East makes another trick in spades (the ace of trumps), the penalty is two tricks ? 2Sp+1 for a lone top. When I explained to West that it would also be considered illegal for him to keep the trick open, without saying anything, in the hope that partner would discover the revoke, he accepted that they had to be ruled against. But strange happenings nevertheless. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 18 19:12:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:12:12 +1000 Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA00418 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:12:06 +1000 Received: from default ([195.89.178.78]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.03) id 6558100 ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:01:32 -0000 Message-ID: <000501be897b$15e71100$4eb259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Rickard, Jeremy" , "BLML" Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 08:44:31 +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 I have waited to see if someone would say it is OK for him to argue an opinion on the net but it would be wrong to act upon it if it was not approved by the organisation that appoints him. It seemed to me this would be the chief worry. mt To: BLML Date: 09 April 1999 12:37 Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) (snip) >I understand that you feel strongly about this. But to be fair to >Herman, if you sincerely believe in an interpretation of the laws, >even if you're in a tiny minority and the majority are horrified >by your interpretation, there is nothing unethical about propounding >your views. I wouldn't want unpopular views (self-)censored on BLML. (snip) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 18 20:28:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 20:28:26 +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 UAA00545 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 20:28:20 +1000 Received: from modem41.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.41] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10Yoo4-0004dE-00; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:28:09 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:27:06 +0100 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 ................................................................ Views expressed by members of the WBFLC should be received as personal opinions if there is no agreed committee position on record to be quoted. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ================================ ---------- > From: Jan Kamras > To: blml > Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) > Date: 16 April 1999 23:38 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > What would the ruling be on the example hand? > > ------------------- \x/ ------------------- > > I have no big problem with a slight amount of "punishment" becoming > included in the adjusted score. I'd have a bigger problem if NOS did not > get the benefit of the doubt. EW were totally robbed of their 25/35% > (whatever) shot at reaching 7S=. What exactly is "equitable"? > ------------------ \x/ -------------------- {{{{{ The 'equity' in 12C3 is based on the equity in the position reached immediately prior to the irregularity. [This statement has had committee assent although I do not recall that it was minuted and it could simply have been agreement with Kaplan's statement in some other context.] Equity is an even-handed matter which recognizes the interest of the OS as well as that of the NOS, which is why punishment should be a matter for parallel penalty. To award the 25/35% shot of the NOS as the 100% outcome is not an attempt to achieve equity, it is an attempt (in my opinion a screwed attempt) at 'justice' where this is seen as the loss of all rights. It uses score adjustment to penalize rather than to rectify and the element is not 'slight'. My belief is that the NOS are entitled not to be caused loss by the opponent's irregularity but should not be entitled to the increase in their equity gained by assuredly arriving where prior to the irregularity there was no certainty that they would arrive. ~ Grattan ~ }}}} recognizes From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 18 20:51:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 20:51:55 +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 UAA00599 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 20:51:49 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-38.uunet.be [194.7.13.38]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25676 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:51:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3719B4B5.51704841@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:32:21 +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: SPLIT/WEI References: <9904161116.0FU5Q00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > > B>1NT pass pass pass. > B>Now it turns out 1NT is 8-10, but unalerted. > B>The first decision from opponents about passing is turned > B>around (100%), no problem. But if the chance of them > B>reaching slam is put at 30%, a good L12C3 score would be 40% > B>of slam and 60% of game. > > If it is felt that the probability of reaching a good slam is about 30%, > would not the difference between 30% and 40% be punishment as opposed to > equity? If punishment is to be meted out, it ought to be done by penalty, > not adjustment. > I feel the difference between 30% and 40% is just that of 'keeping the punters happy', giving them slightly more than they actually deserve. It is no different than giving 60% scores, when actually the own average should suffice. In fact, I had once calculated that one ought to award 20% over the 'perceived' chance, so giving 50% of slam would be fairer in this case. Now I AM puzzled that one would criticize awarding 40% of slam, when ACBL policy is to award 100% of same (as being the only score possible under L12C2) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 19 02:50:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 02:50:51 +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 CAA03979 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 02:50:45 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA05109 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:48:57 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > ................................................................ > > {{{{{ > The 'equity' in 12C3 is based on the equity in the position reached > immediately prior to the irregularity. [This statement has had > committee assent although I do not recall that it was minuted > and it could simply have been agreement with Kaplan's statement > in some other context.] Equity is an even-handed matter which > recognizes the interest of the OS as well as that of the NOS, > which is why punishment should be a matter for parallel > penalty. To award the 25/35% shot of the NOS as the 100% > outcome is not an attempt to achieve equity, it is an attempt (in > my opinion a screwed attempt) at 'justice' where this is seen as > the loss of all rights. It uses score adjustment to penalize rather > than to rectify and the element is not 'slight'. My belief is that > the NOS are entitled not to be caused loss by the opponent's > irregularity but should not be entitled to the increase in their > equity gained by assuredly arriving where prior to the > irregularity there was no certainty that they would arrive. > ~ Grattan ~ }}}} > Can we then anticpate more changes in the Laws to reflect this philosophy? I am thinking especially of revokes, LOOTs, and BOOTs. Might as well have a consistent set of Laws. The NOs get only their equity, no more? The calculations will be difficult, but no more so than figuring that a pair would have a 30% chance of bidding a slam in the absence of an MI or UI infraction. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 19 08:44:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:11 +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 IAA04912 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:43:59 +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 10Z0I3-00068v-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 22:43:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:55:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Split/Weighted. (was Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception) References: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> ................................................................ >> >> {{{{{ >> The 'equity' in 12C3 is based on the equity in the position reached >> immediately prior to the irregularity. [This statement has had >> committee assent although I do not recall that it was minuted >> and it could simply have been agreement with Kaplan's statement >> in some other context.] Equity is an even-handed matter which >> recognizes the interest of the OS as well as that of the NOS, >> which is why punishment should be a matter for parallel >> penalty. To award the 25/35% shot of the NOS as the 100% >> outcome is not an attempt to achieve equity, it is an attempt (in >> my opinion a screwed attempt) at 'justice' where this is seen as >> the loss of all rights. It uses score adjustment to penalize rather >> than to rectify and the element is not 'slight'. My belief is that >> the NOS are entitled not to be caused loss by the opponent's >> irregularity but should not be entitled to the increase in their >> equity gained by assuredly arriving where prior to the >> irregularity there was no certainty that they would arrive. >> ~ Grattan ~ }}}} >> >Can we then anticpate more changes in the Laws to reflect this >philosophy? I am thinking especially of revokes, LOOTs, and BOOTs. Might >as well have a consistent set of Laws. The NOs get only their equity, no >more? The calculations will be difficult, but no more so than figuring >that a pair would have a 30% chance of bidding a slam in the absence of >an MI or UI infraction. Apart from whether this is desirable, I believe it to be completely impractical. I have always thought that the wording in the Scope of the Laws is too strong anyway. I believe that we need to reach agreements on what is a desirable overall approach. Equity adjustment without punishment is undesirable as an overall goal because then the game will be less well controlled. As I see it, the general approach at this moment is that most rulings are one of two types: mechanical and judgement. Mechanical rulings are designed to include a certain amount of punishment, and a certain amount of equity adjustment. They are designed to be easy to implement without need for complicated and lengthy consideration of hands, and the use of Appeals Committees to review mechanical rulings is to be discouraged. Judgement rulings are designed to aim for equity adjustment, with punishment being added separately. However, in fact this is not really happening: the nearest to achieving it is L12C3 adjustments. While certain people believe that L12C3 is unworkable because Appeals Committees have all the judgement of an ill-tempered stoat with measles, if equity is the aim, L12C3 works best, and this may be seen in jurisdictions with effective and fair ACs. L12C2 is the other route to equity adjustment. It is not really designed to reach equity, but to reach something where equity is mixed with a totally random amount of punishment. Now, it surprises me that jurisdictions that have no faith in their law-givers believe this to be the answer to achieving equity. However, some tinkering with the meanings of likely and at all probable does make this a bit closer to equity. It seems to me that either we want to aim for equity adjustment, and thus we need Laws and interpretations thereof that aim for this, or we should change our aim to accept a reasonable amount of punishment. we must decide what we want, and then decide how to achieve it. Of course, as everyone on this list now realises, there are some authorities that believe the way to achieve equity is to assume that whatever the hand or the infraction, 60% to the non-offenders achieves equity. Personally I prefer David Burn's -1700 for *any* infraction: just as fair, and easier to implement, in my view! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 19 08:44:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:20 +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 IAA04931 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:12 +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 10Z0ID-000Dvz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 22:44:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 22:30:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A strange revoke References: <3719A16F.D0A46FE@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3719A16F.D0A46FE@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >The setting : > >Belgian National Pairs, semi final, which is the first round >where the two communities meet. >East-West : a dutch couple, the only pair in the field not >to speak french (and why should they) >North-South : a top Belgian pair, both trying very hard to >speak dutch. > >Declarer (changed to south for conformity) is in 2 Spades. > >These are the Spade and Diamond suits. The rest is >immaterial, and I'm too lazy to look up the real hand. > > 54 > ? >Qxx6 A7 >? K?3 > KJxxx > AQ? > >Declarer, in dummy, waves to indicate a spade lead. East >thinks he waves to diamonds and contributes the three of >that suit. >I have not been able to establish whether or not the spade >was actually played, but dummy, declarer, and west all agree >that spades were played. > >Declarer, angry at the bad break, plays the King and west >contributes the six. Declarer now leads the Ace of Hearts. > >At this moment, while the previous trick is still open, >Easts asks if West has no diamonds, and the revoke is >discovered. > >At this time I am called to the table. I find that West has >not played to the following trick and that the revoke has >not been established, so it has to be corrected. I reserve >my decision on the questions later, as in any case the >revoke must be corrected. > >East changes her play to the seven of Spades, and South now >changes his to the losing finesse on the Queen. >West is in, but has lead penalties about the three of >diamonds, and declarer demands diamonds and thus gets the >finesse he would have difficulty in doing himself (dummy is >rather short of entries). > >The result is down one, but I still have to give a ruling. > >I try to establish what really happened and after some time >I find that North-South have not reacted to East's question >and it is solely West who has replied that it was really a >spade trick. Presumably because of language difficulties. But what card was taken from the dummy? I assume it was a spade. >Do you agree that I must now apply L63B (attention illegally >drawn - Belgium is not in the ACBL, I must add) ? > >And that since East makes another trick in spades (the ace >of trumps), the penalty is two tricks ? 2Sp+1 for a lone >top. It looks that way to me. The reason for this is unfortunate, but really I believe that players ought to pay sufficient attention to the game to notice whether the card taken from the dummy is the one they believe declarer has asked for. In effect, inattention to this detail seems at the heart of this problem. >When I explained to West that it would also be considered >illegal for him to keep the trick open, without saying >anything, in the hope that partner would discover the >revoke, he accepted that they had to be ruled against. > >But strange happenings nevertheless. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 19 08:44:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:08 +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 IAA04913 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:01 +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 10Z0I5-00069q-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 22:43:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:56:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two cards visible References: <7ks$4wA6I6F3EwoD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Is intent important or relevant? Cheers John *I* am asking *you*! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 19 08:44:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:11 +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 IAA04914 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 08:44:01 +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 10Z0I6-00068w-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 22:43:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:59:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What to say?... (UI) References: <000501be897b$15e71100$4eb259c3@default> In-Reply-To: <000501be897b$15e71100$4eb259c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk magda.thain wrote: >I have waited to see if someone would say it is OK for him to argue an >opinion on the net but it would be wrong to act upon it if it was not >approved by the organisation that appoints him. It seemed to me this >would be the chief worry. I put a lot of personal opinions here, and elsewhere on the Internet. I know that some of them are not approved by the authorities I work for, and I am often not permitted to follow them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 19 10:24:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:24:03 +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 KAA05260 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:23:51 +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 10Z1qi-0000sI-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:23:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 01:22:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two cards visible 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: two cards played together and both visible. > >>Is intent important or relevant? Cheers John > > *I* am asking *you*! > With two cards visible and no clear indication as to which was intended I believe the answer is No. Of course if one is played and the other is dropped that is different. And, if there is no discernable intent (as adduced from the action of the play) then I would allow the player to select which one to play L58B2 (which refers to Law 50, not Law 50D) and dispose of the other as a major or minor penalty card depending on the rank, as L50B clearly says "... as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally..." . I see nothing in L58 which asks me to find intent. (whereas L25A for example requires me to establish intent). Thus in the 10 8 situation I offer the player the choice of playing the 8 and having the 10 as a major penalty card, or playing the 10 and having the 8 as a minor penalty card. I also caution their partner about the UI implications. RobinB and DWS are not sure of this, as I recall. 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 Apr 19 10:57:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:57:25 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA05361 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:57:19 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial178.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.178]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA26363; Sun, 18 Apr 1999 20:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 20:56:39 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 2:55 PM -0400 4/18/99, David Stevenson wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >>Can we then anticpate more changes in the Laws to reflect this >>philosophy? I am thinking especially of revokes, LOOTs, and BOOTs. Might >>as well have a consistent set of Laws. The NOs get only their equity, no >>more? The calculations will be difficult, but no more so than figuring >>that a pair would have a 30% chance of bidding a slam in the absence of >>an MI or UI infraction. > > Apart from whether this is desirable, I believe it to be completely >impractical. I have always thought that the wording in the Scope of the >Laws is too strong anyway. He can correct me, but I don't believe Marvin intended his suggestion to be taken seriously. > I believe that we need to reach agreements on what is a desirable >overall approach. Equity adjustment without punishment is undesirable >as an overall goal because then the game will be less well controlled. If you are saying that there must be an incentive to obey the Laws then I agree wholeheartedly. Restoring equity does nothing to discourage infractions. Those who commit such infractions will come out ahead overall since not all of their infractions will be discovered and reported, and of those that are reported damage will not always be redressed. > L12C2 is the other route to equity adjustment. It is not really >designed to reach equity, but to reach something where equity is mixed >with a totally random amount of punishment. I believe Law 12C2 is designed to reach something preferable to either equity or punishment. You used the term in an earlier post - "justice". I take this to mean that each side gets what it deserves. I vastly prefer this to the "equity" approach for a number of reasons, and would whether I were a member of the NOS, the OS, or uninvolved. o As a member of the NOS I'd feel I deserve the most favorable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred. Just as with a revoke, at a certain point in the deal the game changed from Bridge played according to its rules to something else. Take the case where my side missed a game depending on a 2-way finesse. I don't want to be told that I'd have got it right half the time, or the percentage of the time that the field got it right, or the percentage of time that my peers would have got it right. I was deprived of my chance to guess or reason the position for myself - I deserve the benefit of the doubt, the assumption that I'd have guessed successfully. o As a member of the OS I'd have no objection to receiving the least favorable result that was at all probable for my side had we not committed the infraction. If we gave misinformation perhaps the adjustment will help convince my partner that we should play fewer conventions! If, on the other hand, our infraction happened to do no harm then I believe no penalty would called for. I'd cite law 0: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " o As an uninvolved party I'd much prefer a law that specifies a predictable outcome, one that need seldom be resolved by a committee. That would get me my results sooner, and I'd need not worry that the personalities involved would affect the outcome. If the Law were to provide an incentive for legal and ethical behavior, so much the better! > It seems to me that either we want to aim for equity adjustment, and >thus we need Laws and interpretations thereof that aim for this, or we >should change our aim to accept a reasonable amount of punishment. we >must decide what we want, and then decide how to achieve it. These seem like false alternatives. I prefer justice, as embodied in Law 12C2. AW From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 19 18:03:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:03:22 +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 SAA06376 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:03:09 +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 KAA18426; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:02:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199904190802.KAA18426@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:04:39 +0200 Subject: Re: Two cards visible Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: john@probst.demon.co.uk 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 > In article , David Stevenson > writes > >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > two cards played together and both visible. > > > >>Is intent important or relevant? Cheers John > > > > *I* am asking *you*! > > > With two cards visible and no clear indication as to which was intended > I believe the answer is No. Of course if one is played and the other is > dropped that is different. > > And, if there is no discernable intent (as adduced from the action of > the play) then I would allow the player to select which one to play > L58B2 (which refers to Law 50, not Law 50D) and dispose of the other as > a major or minor penalty card depending on the rank, as L50B clearly > says "... as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card > accidentally..." . I see nothing in L58 which asks me to find intent. > (whereas L25A for example requires me to establish intent). > > Thus in the 10 8 situation I offer the player the choice of playing the > 8 and having the 10 as a major penalty card, or playing the 10 and > having the 8 as a minor penalty card. I also caution their partner about > the UI implications. In the TD exam of the NBB on april 10th, one of the questions covered exactly this situation (not 10-8 but 10-5), and the right answer was exactly as John proposes. So I suppose this pretty much represents the official Dutch view.... Cheers JP From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 19 19:26:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA06576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 19:26:06 +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 TAA06571 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 19:25:53 +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 10ZAJE-000HSC-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 09:25:44 +0000 Message-ID: <9M4iE4BLJqG3EwSk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 04:26:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Split/Weighted References: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> I believe that we need to reach agreements on what is a desirable >>overall approach. Equity adjustment without punishment is undesirable >>as an overall goal because then the game will be less well controlled. >If you are saying that there must be an incentive to obey the Laws then I >agree wholeheartedly. Restoring equity does nothing to discourage >infractions. Those who commit such infractions will come out ahead overall >since not all of their infractions will be discovered and reported, and of >those that are reported damage will not always be redressed. > >> L12C2 is the other route to equity adjustment. It is not really >>designed to reach equity, but to reach something where equity is mixed >>with a totally random amount of punishment. > >I believe Law 12C2 is designed to reach something preferable to either >equity or punishment. You used the term in an earlier post - "justice". I >take this to mean that each side gets what it deserves. I vastly prefer >this to the "equity" approach for a number of reasons, and would whether I >were a member of the NOS, the OS, or uninvolved. > >o As a member of the NOS I'd feel I deserve the most favorable result that >was likely had the infraction not occurred. Just as with a revoke, at a >certain point in the deal the game changed from Bridge played according to >its rules to something else. Take the case where my side missed a game >depending on a 2-way finesse. I don't want to be told that I'd have got it >right half the time, or the percentage of the time that the field got it >right, or the percentage of time that my peers would have got it right. I >was deprived of my chance to guess or reason the position for myself - I >deserve the benefit of the doubt, the assumption that I'd have guessed >successfully. Fine. That is one approach, but it is somewhat doubtful as to whether everyone would really feel it is justice. Of course, you quote a good example for it. Now consider the case where you play in game with a grand slam on: if you were really not going to bid it, should you be awarded it? [Of course, we are going to give you the small slam whatever]. >o As a member of the OS I'd have no objection to receiving the least >favorable result that was at all probable for my side had we not committed >the infraction. If we gave misinformation perhaps the adjustment will help >convince my partner that we should play fewer conventions! If, on the other >hand, our infraction happened to do no harm then I believe no penalty would >called for. I'd cite law 0: "The Laws are primarily designed not as >punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " The whole point is that Law 0 does not apply often enough for it to be quoted with any meaningful cause. >o As an uninvolved party I'd much prefer a law that specifies a predictable >outcome, one that need seldom be resolved by a committee. That would get me >my results sooner, and I'd need not worry that the personalities involved >would affect the outcome. If the Law were to provide an incentive for legal >and ethical behavior, so much the better! None of your suggestions would get this. That is the problem: you are known to dislike L12C3 because of poor Committees: that does not make much sense when compared with the total mangling of L12C2 and L12C1 that we see when a North American committee goes mad! >> It seems to me that either we want to aim for equity adjustment, and >>thus we need Laws and interpretations thereof that aim for this, or we >>should change our aim to accept a reasonable amount of punishment. we >>must decide what we want, and then decide how to achieve it. > >These seem like false alternatives. I prefer justice, as embodied in Law 12C2. So the last question: would the majority agree with you? PWD -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 00:46:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:46:31 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09558 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:46:21 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA26758 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA04678 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:46:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904191446.KAA04678@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > And, if there is no discernable intent (as adduced from the action of > the play) then I would allow the player to select which one to play > L58B2 (which refers to Law 50, not Law 50D) and dispose of the other as > a major or minor penalty card depending on the rank, as L50B clearly > says "... as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card > accidentally..." . I see nothing in L58 which asks me to find intent. This seems clear and obvious. Why is there any doubt? Is there an argument for the opposite position? The case is one of the specific examples in L50B. On the other hand, David's original question _assumed_ that we somehow knew the original intent. Perhaps the player blurted out "Oh, I meant to play the six!" If this really happened, and the player decides to play the other card instead, it seems to me we are now in major penalty card territory after all. I would expect this situation to be very rare except in beginner's games. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 01:06:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 01:06:23 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09655 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 01:06:10 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA27412 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:06:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA04702 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:05:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:05:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904191505.LAA04702@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A strange revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Declarer, in dummy, waves to indicate a spade lead. East > thinks he waves to diamonds and contributes the three of > that suit. An interesting case. I take it you are not prepared to rule that "waving" is a breach of L45B? It is interesting that L61B is violated, and L63B applies, even when the revoking defender asks the non-revoking defender. I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense, but it seems to be what the language says. Are there official interpretations on this point? > Belgium is not in the ACBL, I must add ? Lucky for the Belgians! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 02:32:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:32:59 +1000 Received: from ws2.icl.co.uk (mailgate.icl.co.uk [194.176.223.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10127 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:32:39 +1000 Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.3]) by ws2.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA01515 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:29:10 GMT Received: from umg2.x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA12513; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:31:35 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by umg2.x400.icl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) id RAA08804 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:31:30 +0100 (BST) X400-Received: by mta umg in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 19 Apr 99 17:31:11 +0100 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Mon, 19 Apr 99 17:25:32 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Mon, 19 Apr 99 17:30:44 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Mon, 19 Apr 99 18:34:00 +0200 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 99 18:34:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G90021BA3D7D00000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Importance: normal Subject: Full disclosure Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Teams, NS vulnerable, dealer W AQJ87 A73 KQJ10 K 32 64 KQ9865 J102 75 8642 Q108 6532 K1095 4 A93 AJ974 W N E S ------------------- 2H dbl p 2NT p 3S p 4NT p 5NT p 6C p 7S p p dbl p p 7NT passes... 2H - 7-10 points, 6+H 2NT - Lebensohl 3S - 16+ 4NT - Blackwood, spades agreed 5NT - 2 aces (from 5) and 2 kings 6C - trump query 7S - extremely good hand, partner must see all aces to bid 6C. 7NT - S explained later that for him the only reason of a double was the W's void in minor suit. After completion of the board (one down), S asked W: - Why did you double ?. The answer was: - I knew that it will eventually cost us one or two imps only. The slam zone of our teammates is very week and they are not allowed to play 7 in any case. Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: was there violation of Laws in this case? Jan Romanski ________________________________________ tel: +4822-6310566 mob: +48-601403308 e-mail: jan_f_romanski@x400.icl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 02:34:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:34:12 +1000 Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10174 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:34:04 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id MAA01540; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9M4iE4BLJqG3EwSk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:11:36 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:26 PM -0400 4/18/99, David Stevenson wrote: >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>o As an uninvolved party I'd much prefer a law that specifies a predictable >>outcome, one that need seldom be resolved by a committee. That would get me >>my results sooner, and I'd need not worry that the personalities involved >>would affect the outcome. If the Law were to provide an incentive for legal >>and ethical behavior, so much the better! > > None of your suggestions would get this. Why don't you think so? By "my suggestions" do you mean application of Law 12C2? >That is the problem: you are >known to dislike L12C3 because of poor Committees: that does not make >much sense when compared with the total mangling of L12C2 and L12C1 that >we see when a North American committee goes mad! Either I have not made myself clear or you are confusing me with someone else. The quality of committees has nothing to do with my abhorrence of Law 12C3. I dislike it because it is not objective. > So the last question: would the majority agree with you? That I can't answer - my intent is to persuade, or to be persuaded! Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 02:44:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:44:54 +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 CAA10199 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:44:43 +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 MAA07250 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:43:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990419124752.0069add8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:47:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:34 PM 4/19/99 +0200, Jan wrote: >Teams, NS vulnerable, dealer W > > AQJ87 > A73 > KQJ10 > K >32 64 >KQ9865 J102 >75 8642 >Q108 6532 > K1095 > 4 > A93 > AJ974 > > W N E S >------------------- > 2H dbl p 2NT > p 3S p 4NT > p 5NT p 6C > p 7S p p >dbl p p 7NT passes... > > 2H - 7-10 points, 6+H >2NT - Lebensohl > 3S - 16+ >4NT - Blackwood, spades agreed >5NT - 2 aces (from 5) and 2 kings > 6C - trump query > 7S - extremely good hand, partner must see all aces to bid 6C. >7NT - S explained later that for him the only reason > of a double was the W's void in minor suit. > >After completion of the board (one down), S asked W: >- Why did you double ?. >The answer was: >- I knew that it will eventually cost us one or two imps only. >The slam zone of our teammates is very week and they are >not allowed to play 7 in any case. > >Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: > >was there violation of Laws in this case? No. I can't even figure out where someone might see such a possibility. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 04:46:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:46:27 +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 EAA10583 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:46:19 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h97.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id WAA05160; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:46:11 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <371C0775.BF6@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:49:57 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_1.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_1.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) John A. Mac Gregor wrote: "DWS wrote: | I do not understand this, for two reasons. | | The Law requires you not to play out of tempo | without a demonstrable bridge reason. | It does not say you may not false-card after a tank. What kind of game would we be playing if everyone could tank in deciding which falsecard to make. If we cannot find a 'Law' to support this position, the game is in trouble." I guess that one may assure John: things are not so bad:) 1. I should remind: the Legend teaches us that when we lead small card to dummy (where there are something likes AQx) and LHO tanks - you have right to ask him "Have you a problem?". And according to the Legend the LHO should answer negatively if he thinks about signal (or similar) and positively if has real bridge problem in the very current trick. 2. During European Mixed Championship - 1998 there was an appeal where almost the same happening (RHO hesitated with AK10xx behind dummy's QJx) and the decision was quite severe - that means that ACs know how to fight with this kind of troubles in our game. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 04:47:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:47:44 +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 EAA10600 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:47:37 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA21339 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007c01be8a95$1a9b5420$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com><003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:47:36 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>Can we then anticpate more changes in the Laws to reflect this > >>philosophy? I am thinking especially of revokes, LOOTs, and BOOTs. Might > >>as well have a consistent set of Laws. The NOs get only their equity, no > >>more? The calculations will be difficult, but no more so than figuring > >>that a pair would have a 30% chance of bidding a slam in the absence of > >>an MI or UI infraction. > > > > Apart from whether this is desirable, I believe it to be completely > >impractical. I have always thought that the wording in the Scope of the > >Laws is too strong anyway. > > He can correct me, but I don't believe Marvin intended his suggestion to be > taken seriously. > Right. I meant to point out the futility of trying to figure the probabilities of various possible outcomes. I would like to see more effort put into finding ways to reduce the UI and MI being generated these days, and less effort in finding ideal equity solutions. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 05:57:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 05:57:36 +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 FAA10836 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 05:57:30 +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 <19990419195724.GSWK6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:57:24 -0700 Message-ID: <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:01:55 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Romanski wrote: > > Teams, NS vulnerable, dealer W > > AQJ87 > A73 > KQJ10 > K > 32 64 > KQ9865 J102 > 75 8642 > Q108 6532 > K1095 > 4 > A93 > AJ974 > > W N E S > ------------------- > 2H dbl p 2NT > p 3S p 4NT > p 5NT p 6C > p 7S p p > dbl p p 7NT passes... > > 2H - 7-10 points, 6+H > 2NT - Lebensohl > 3S - 16+ > 4NT - Blackwood, spades agreed > 5NT - 2 aces (from 5) and 2 kings > 6C - trump query > 7S - extremely good hand, partner must see all aces to bid 6C. > 7NT - S explained later that for him the only reason > of a double was the W's void in minor suit. > > After completion of the board (one down), S asked W: > - Why did you double ?. > The answer was: > - I knew that it will eventually cost us one or two imps only. > The slam zone of our teammates is very week and they are > not allowed to play 7 in any case. > > Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: > > was there violation of Laws in this case? I'm sure I'm missing something, but what conceivable infraction might that be? South's question to West, the answer to which is basically none of South's business? :-) There seem to have been no UI, nor any MI. If South was interested in any potential special meaning of the double he should have asked East b4 removing to 7NT. In any case, it seems West pulled off a successful psyche, getting NS out of a making and into a failing slam. Well done! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 08:52:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:52:05 +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 IAA00223 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:51:57 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-64-27.s27.tnt17.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.64.27]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA01751 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:48:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <013201be8ab5$83668400$1b40accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <371C0775.BF6@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:39:39 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 12:49 AM Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception > Hi all:) > > John A. Mac Gregor wrote: > "DWS wrote: > | I do not understand this, for two reasons. > | > | The Law requires you not to play out of tempo > | without a demonstrable bridge reason. > | It does not say you may not false-card after a tank. > What kind of game would we be playing if everyone could > tank in deciding which falsecard to make. > If we cannot find a 'Law' to support this position, the > game is in trouble." > > I guess that one may assure John: things are not so bad:) > > 1. I should remind: the Legend teaches us that when we > lead small card to dummy (where there are something likes > AQx) and LHO tanks - you have right to ask him "Have you > a problem?". And according to the Legend the LHO should > answer negatively if he thinks about signal (or similar) and > positively if has real bridge problem in the very current trick. > There may be a language mixup, but I certainly cannot think of any justification in Law or anywhere else to ask an opponent whether or not he has a problem in the event of a trance during play. There is certainly no obligation for the opponent to answer such a question, much less answer it truthfully (if I might be forgiven for dredging up an old thread). The Laws make quite clear that you take any inferences from such information at your own risk, but... > 2. During European Mixed Championship - 1998 there was > an appeal where almost the same happening (RHO > hesitated with AK10xx behind dummy's QJx) and the decision > was quite severe - that means that ACs know how to fight > with this kind of troubles in our game. > This is not the same thing at all. Here, the trance occurred with no demonstrable bridge reason. Intentional variation in tempo in an attempt to deceive is not allowed, however, the Laws have taken us a step away from trying to discern the actual motivation for the player who tranced in such a situation, by allowing us to adjust if the player might have known that such a trance would damage the opponents. > > Best wishes Vitold > > In the US, if a player happens to tank with no real problem, it is very common to hear him say "I have no problem on this play". This is strictly voluntary, and has already been discussed recently. However, it is not at all proper to ask an opponent "Does your tank indicate a real problem?" Best wishes, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 09:05:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:05:15 +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 JAA00288 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:05:09 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA11159 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 15:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 15:36:06 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: > Jan Romanski wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: Jan Kamras To: blml > > > Teams, NS vulnerable, dealer W > > > > AQJ87 > > A73 > > KQJ10 > > K > > 32 64 > > KQ9865 J102 > > 75 8642 > > Q108 6532 > > K1095 > > 4 > > A93 > > AJ974 > > > > W N E S > > ------------------- > > 2H dbl p 2NT > > p 3S p 4NT > > p 5NT p 6C > > p 7S p p > > dbl p p 7NT passes... > > > > 2H - 7-10 points, 6+H > > 2NT - Lebensohl > > 3S - 16+ > > 4NT - Blackwood, spades agreed > > 5NT - 2 aces (from 5) and 2 kings > > 6C - trump query > > 7S - extremely good hand, partner must see all aces to bid 6C. > > 7NT - S explained later that for him the only reason > > of a double was the W's void in minor suit. > > > > After completion of the board (one down), S asked W: > > - Why did you double ?. > > The answer was: > > - I knew that it will eventually cost us one or two imps only. > > The slam zone of our teammates is very week and they are > > not allowed to play 7 in any case. > > > > Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: > > > > was there violation of Laws in this case? > > I'm sure I'm missing something, but what conceivable infraction might > that be? South's question to West, the answer to which is basically none > of South's business? :-) > There seem to have been no UI, nor any MI. > If South was interested in any potential special meaning of the double > he should have asked East b4 removing to 7NT. In any case, it seems West > pulled off a successful psyche, getting NS out of a making and into a > failing slam. Well done! All well and good, in accordance with the Laws. I've always thought that a team pair should have the right to look over the convention card of their opposite numbers, and ask questions if necessary as to whether the pair has any unusual partnership understandings. Surely one might want to be aware of what might occur at the other table when considering a call or play. It seems to me that the Laws should address this subject, or maybe it could be handled by regulation. Perhaps the word "opponent" should be redefined to include all playing members of an opposing team. As it is, the word refers only to the opponents at the table. If it included their teammates, then L75 could apply without change ("Special partnership agreements...must be fully and freely available to the opponents"). As it stands now, disclosing that one's teammates are forbidden to bid a grand slam would be a sportsmanlike pre-Alert, IMO. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 10:52:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:52:38 +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 KAA00552 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:52:31 +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 10ZOly-0001ki-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:52:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 01:42:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Jan Romanski writes >Teams, NS vulnerable, dealer W > > AQJ87 > A73 > KQJ10 > K >32 64 >KQ9865 J102 >75 8642 >Q108 6532 > K1095 > 4 > A93 > AJ974 > > W N E S >------------------- > 2H dbl p 2NT > p 3S p 4NT > p 5NT p 6C > p 7S p p >dbl p p 7NT passes... > > 2H - 7-10 points, 6+H >2NT - Lebensohl > 3S - 16+ >4NT - Blackwood, spades agreed >5NT - 2 aces (from 5) and 2 kings > 6C - trump query > 7S - extremely good hand, partner must see all aces to bid 6C. >7NT - S explained later that for him the only reason > of a double was the W's void in minor suit. > >After completion of the board (one down), S asked W: >- Why did you double ?. >The answer was: >- I knew that it will eventually cost us one or two imps only. >The slam zone of our teammates is very week and they are >not allowed to play 7 in any case. > >Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: > >was there violation of Laws in this case? > I recall discussions related to knowledge of team-mates methods about a year ago. I think we felt that you are not obliged to disclose them, and I think the psychic Lightner is good high-variance bridge. A simple example suffices: we play 3NT which fails because we play weak NT and it will be played and made if we play strong NT, because it is played from partner's hand. Are we allowed to ask opponents "Do your tem-mates play strong NT?" IMO we are not. 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 Apr 20 10:54:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:54:39 +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 KAA00570 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:54:33 +1000 Received: from p0as02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.11] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10ZMZc-0002LJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:31:28 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:32:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8ab4$7a22cd00$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 Romanski To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 5:58 PM Subject: Full disclosure >Teams, NS vulnerable, dealer W > > AQJ87 > A73 > KQJ10 > K >32 64 >KQ9865 J102 >75 8642 >Q108 6532 > K1095 > 4 > A93 > AJ974 > > W N E S >------------------- > 2H dbl p 2NT > p 3S p 4NT > p 5NT p 6C > p 7S p p >dbl p p 7NT passes... > > 2H - 7-10 points, 6+H >2NT - Lebensohl > 3S - 16+ >4NT - Blackwood, spades agreed >5NT - 2 aces (from 5) and 2 kings > 6C - trump query > 7S - extremely good hand, partner must see all aces to bid 6C. >7NT - S explained later that for him the only reason > of a double was the W's void in minor suit. > >After completion of the board (one down), S asked W: >- Why did you double ?. >The answer was: >- I knew that it will eventually cost us one or two imps only. >The slam zone of our teammates is very week and they are >not allowed to play 7 in any case. > >Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: > >was there violation of Laws in this case? This reminds me of a thread about 6/12 ago when a player wanted to know the system being played by his opps team mates at the other table. Consensus agreed that you are entitled to know the system played by your opps. Opponents was defined as the players playing against you at the same table. By default it was agreed that you were not entitled to know the other teams' system at the other table. We are now in a slightly different realm. Is the system, and the partnership agreements of your team mates at the other table authorised to you? I suspect it is extraneous and UI., but I do not think it should be so. A team game is an effort to win as a foursome (6/8some) and it does not seem unreasonable that such tactics are agreed. Such information should of course be available to the opps. As has been mentioned by another, the double is psychic. It was a good psyche and worked to his advantage. However we have here a psyche which is protected by the knowledge that the cost of failure is limited. I think it important that we agree whether or not the instructions to team-mates is AI or UI., and whether disclosure is required. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 11:35:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:35:44 +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 LAA00662 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:35:26 +1000 Received: from pf6s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.247] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10ZPRU-0004nM-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:35:17 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:30:35 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8acd$63ca8ca0$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 "The Legend" is an expression that Vitold uses regularly. I do not think he means that which is written is the Laws. I have in the past interpreted this freely as "historically". Maybe he means "as EK intended". Maybe Vitold would elucidate. It may be of importance in this context. In the past I have not found it to be a problem, but I must admit I thought it a novel suggestion to ask an opp. if he had a problem., although I have sarcastically said "signal coming" in the past:-)) In a _friendly_ game only of course! It has the desired effect Anne -----Original Message----- From: Hirsch Davis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 12:16 AM Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 12:49 AM >Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception > > >> Hi all:) >> >> John A. Mac Gregor wrote: >> "DWS wrote: >> | I do not understand this, for two reasons. >> | >> | The Law requires you not to play out of tempo >> | without a demonstrable bridge reason. >> | It does not say you may not false-card after a tank. >> What kind of game would we be playing if everyone could >> tank in deciding which falsecard to make. >> If we cannot find a 'Law' to support this position, the >> game is in trouble." >> >> I guess that one may assure John: things are not so bad:) >> >> 1. I should remind: the Legend teaches us that when we >> lead small card to dummy (where there are something likes >> AQx) and LHO tanks - you have right to ask him "Have you >> a problem?". And according to the Legend the LHO should >> answer negatively if he thinks about signal (or similar) and >> positively if has real bridge problem in the very current trick. >> > >There may be a language mixup, but I certainly cannot think of any >justification in Law or anywhere else to ask an opponent whether or not he >has a problem in the event of a trance during play. There is certainly no >obligation for the opponent to answer such a question, much less answer it >truthfully (if I might be forgiven for dredging up an old thread). The Laws >make quite clear that you take any inferences from such information at your >own risk, but... > > >> 2. During European Mixed Championship - 1998 there was >> an appeal where almost the same happening (RHO >> hesitated with AK10xx behind dummy's QJx) and the decision >> was quite severe - that means that ACs know how to fight >> with this kind of troubles in our game. >> > >This is not the same thing at all. Here, the trance occurred with no >demonstrable bridge reason. Intentional variation in tempo in an attempt to >deceive is not allowed, however, the Laws have taken us a step away from >trying to discern the actual motivation for the player who tranced in such a >situation, by allowing us to adjust if the player might have known that such >a trance would damage the opponents. > >> >> Best wishes Vitold >> >> > >In the US, if a player happens to tank with no real problem, it is very >common to hear him say "I have no problem on this play". This is strictly >voluntary, and has already been discussed recently. However, it is not at >all proper to ask an opponent "Does your tank indicate a real problem?" > >Best wishes, > >Hirsch > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 12:36:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:36:11 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA00847 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:36:04 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZQOB-0006b0-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:35:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 03:27:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two cards visible References: <199904191446.KAA04678@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904191446.KAA04678@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> And, if there is no discernable intent (as adduced from the action of >> the play) then I would allow the player to select which one to play >> L58B2 (which refers to Law 50, not Law 50D) and dispose of the other as >> a major or minor penalty card depending on the rank, as L50B clearly >> says "... as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card >> accidentally..." . I see nothing in L58 which asks me to find intent. > >This seems clear and obvious. Why is there any doubt? Is there an >argument for the opposite position? The case is one of the specific >examples in L50B. > >On the other hand, David's original question _assumed_ that we somehow >knew the original intent. Perhaps the player blurted out "Oh, I meant >to play the six!" If this really happened, and the player decides to >play the other card instead, it seems to me we are now in major penalty >card territory after all. I would expect this situation to be very >rare except in beginner's games. Look, Steve, you know how I act by now! If I need to know what the player intended then I shall ask him and I do not expect him to tell me lies. So, do I need to know? The idea that a beginner would be at a disadvantage is abhorrent, and I can find *no* justification for that in the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 12:36:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:36:20 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA00855 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:36:13 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZQOC-0006az-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 02:35:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 03:25:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Split/Weighted References: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <9M4iE4BLJqG3EwSk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 11:26 PM -0400 4/18/99, David Stevenson wrote: >>Adam Wildavsky wrote: >>>o As an uninvolved party I'd much prefer a law that specifies a predictable >>>outcome, one that need seldom be resolved by a committee. That would get me >>>my results sooner, and I'd need not worry that the personalities involved >>>would affect the outcome. If the Law were to provide an incentive for legal >>>and ethical behavior, so much the better! >> >> None of your suggestions would get this. > >Why don't you think so? By "my suggestions" do you mean application of Law >12C2? Yes. >>That is the problem: you are >>known to dislike L12C3 because of poor Committees: that does not make >>much sense when compared with the total mangling of L12C2 and L12C1 that >>we see when a North American committee goes mad! > >Either I have not made myself clear or you are confusing me with someone >else. The quality of committees has nothing to do with my abhorrence of Law >12C3. I dislike it because it is not objective. You commented in your last article about the effect of a different Committee with absurdly differing views - I remember it well! If your reason is not because of the Committees then I would find your arguments more reasonable - but I am sure you have not just said that it is the type of decision. >> So the last question: would the majority agree with you? > >That I can't answer - my intent is to persuade, or to be persuaded! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 13:37:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:37:29 +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 NAA01068 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:37:21 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveghp.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.57]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA10676 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990419233507.006f1dac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:35:07 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:34 PM 4/19/99 +0200, Jan wrote: >Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: > >was there violation of Laws in this case? > I'm not sure I qualify, but I'll bite anyway. Which laws? You're subject line suggests the possiblity that the opponents are entitled to "full disclosure" of your teammates' methods. What information they _might_ be entitled to if they asked has been debated before, but I really don't see any Laws which obligate you to volunteer it. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 19:38:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA01828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 19:38:01 +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 TAA01823 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 19:37:54 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA20889 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:37:17 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 20 Apr 99 10:36 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Full disclosure To: msd@mindspring.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: <3.0.1.32.19990419233507.006f1dac@pop.mindspring.com> "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 06:34 PM 4/19/99 +0200, Jan wrote: > >Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: > > > >was there violation of Laws in this case? > > > I'm not sure I qualify, but I'll bite anyway. Which laws? You're subject > line suggests the possiblity that the opponents are entitled to "full > disclosure" of your teammates' methods. What information they _might_ be > entitled to if they asked has been debated before, but I really don't > see > any Laws which obligate you to volunteer it. > > Mike Dennis I have a partnership understanding/agreement that the hand not on lead will double a suit grand slam unless that hand has the contract beaten purely on the basis of trump tricks. Is this agreement alertable in the UK? Is it sufficiently unusual that I would not expect a pair to protect themselves by asking about it? If the answer to both these questions is yes then an adjustment in Jan's case should be considered under L40 - it is up to TD to establish whether EW have the agreement I describe (or something pretty close to it). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 20:50:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:50:52 +1000 Received: from mpcmr1002.ac.com (MPCMR1002.ac.com [170.252.160.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA01953 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:50:45 +1000 Received: from emehm1101.ac.com (EMEHM1101.ac.com [10.2.102.45]) by mpcmr1002.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA02067 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 05:47:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id 86256759.003BA592 ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 05:51:30 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <86256759.003BA1D4.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:42:54 +0200 Subject: Reshuffle, please Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, in the recently played German team championship, we had a pretty strange case and I would ask you for your opionions about the decisions by both TD and AC. Computer-dealt hands with screens, table 2 of 19: N O S W 1NT p p p After the last pass and East lead of the HK, both South and West discover that 1NT was bid. Both players did not spot the bidding card on the tray! TD is called. N/S have 25 HCP in common (17 vs. 8). 3NT is a make if played by North, because the normal heart-lead will give declarer his ninth trick. If the contract is played by South, the contract will most likely fail. Since the board was not played yet, the TD decides to reshuffle it. The team of E/W loses 13 IMPs on this new board because of a severe mistake on one table. After the match, the team of E/W appeal against the decision. The AC decided that the reshuffle was improper, canceled the reshuffled board and assigned an artifical score. Since the N/S-pair at the other table plays a 14-16 NT, the AC decided that 3NT will always be reached. Assuming that half of the time the contract will be allowed to make, they scored the other table as 250 (600 - 100 / 2), making it 3 IMPs to the team of E/W (assuming 9 tricks after the heart-lead). The team of N/S now wants to appeal, with four VP hanging on the decisions. Final point: The N/S-team made it into the final with their opponents having a carry-over of 12 VP. The N/S-team lost the final 20:22 (10 + 12) VP, only 2 VP short of total victory. If the AC's decision will be changed, the carry-over would only be 8 VP... Now the winners claim that the carry-over plays a crucial part in their teams performance. Knowing that they had a comfortable lead, they played not as sharp as they could have. Thanks for your opinions, Christian n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 21:05:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 21:05:42 +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 VAA02005 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 21:05:36 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-138.uunet.be [194.7.14.138]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25844 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:05:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <371C5581.4B1648A7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:22:57 +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: A strange revoke References: <199904191505.LAA04702@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > Declarer, in dummy, waves to indicate a spade lead. East > > thinks he waves to diamonds and contributes the three of > > that suit. > > An interesting case. I take it you are not prepared to rule that > "waving" is a breach of L45B? > No I haven't. Probably that was the way declarer played all 13 cards from dummy. > It is interesting that L61B is violated, and L63B applies, even when > the revoking defender asks the non-revoking defender. I'm not sure > that makes a whole lot of sense, but it seems to be what the language > says. Are there official interpretations on this point? > Well, it was not that one defender asked the other, but rather that the reply from the other was used to awaken the first defender. Wouldn't you rule that "don't you have spades ?" is the same as "partner, this is a spade trick!" and should incur the same penalties? > > Belgium is not in the ACBL, I must add ? > > Lucky for the Belgians! You said it ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 21:05:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 21:05:46 +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 VAA02009 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 21:05:39 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-138.uunet.be [194.7.14.138]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA25863 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:05:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <371C5CFE.DF665DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:54:54 +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: Full disclosure References: <01be8ab4$7a22cd00$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: Jan Romanski > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Monday, April 19, 1999 5:58 PM > Subject: Full disclosure > > >After completion of the board (one down), S asked W: > >- Why did you double ?. > >The answer was: > >- I knew that it will eventually cost us one or two imps only. > >The slam zone of our teammates is very week and they are > >not allowed to play 7 in any case. > > > >Ladies and gentelmen, your opinion please: > > > >was there violation of Laws in this case? > This reminds me of a thread about 6/12 ago when a player wanted to know the > system being played by his opps team mates at the other table. Consensus > agreed that you are entitled to know the system played by your opps. I don't seem to recall there was consensus. But it does not matter in this case : > Opponents was defined as the players playing against you at the same table. > By default it was agreed that you were not entitled to know the other teams' > system at the other table. > We are now in a slightly different realm. Is the system, and the partnership > agreements of your team mates at the other table authorised to you? > I suspect it is extraneous and UI., but I do not think it should be so. A > team game is an effort to win as a foursome (6/8some) and it does not seem > unreasonable that such tactics are agreed. Such information should of course > be available to the opps. I'm not certain. > As has been mentioned by another, the double is psychic. It was a good > psyche and worked to his advantage. However we have here a psyche which is > protected by the knowledge that the cost of failure is limited. And that is the basis of a possible infraction. I believe the double should be alerted. Meaning : "we know our teammates will not be in seven, so this double is risk-free." > I think it > important that we agree whether or not the instructions to team-mates is AI > or UI., and whether disclosure is required. > Anne The instruction to teammates is not necessarily AI, but the consequence of it on your own system is UI. Nevertheless, I don't believe a correction is in order. North-South could count 13 tricks in trumps, but not in NT. Correction to NT is not a good bet, IMVHO. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 22:22:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:22:56 +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 WAA02279 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:22:43 +1000 Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:21:54 +0200 Message-ID: <371C7168.8054FF5D@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:22:00 +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: Reshuffle, please References: <86256759.003BA1D4.00@emehm1101.ac.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Christian! What a mess.... Christian Farwig schrieb: > > Hi, > > in the recently played German team championship, we had a pretty strange > case and I would ask you for your opionions about the decisions by both TD > and AC. > > Computer-dealt hands with screens, table 2 of 19: > > N O S W > 1NT p p p > > After the last pass and East lead of the HK, both South and West discover > that 1NT was bid. Both players did not spot the bidding card on the tray! > TD is called. > > N/S have 25 HCP in common (17 vs. 8). 3NT is a make if played by North, > because the normal heart-lead will give declarer his ninth trick. If the > contract is played by South, the contract will most likely fail. > > Since the board was not played yet, the TD decides to reshuffle it. The > team of E/W loses 13 IMPs on this new board because of a severe mistake on > one table. > OK first thing: What should the TD do here to handle the situation properly? 1) Using L 25A by S? If the pass by S is unintentional, thén he could change it. So this is the first thing to ask... But: He intended to bid pass. He just passed because of wrong input data. That is not, what the rules in L 25 meant. And he is responsible for the tray (this is not necessarily so). So he passed anyway. L 25B is not applicable here because W passed. So the contract at this table is 1NT. This sort of ruling makes sense: Every player is responsible of getting the true data of what happened. If he mishears or overlooks bids, it´s a pity but there is no recovery from the rules. So here it is 1NT +2 2) The reshuffle of the TD Well this is not proper. L6D3 states that the TD can only reshuffle a board, if the law allows him to do that. BUT: Maybe all parties at the table agreed to reshuffle. Than the result should stand. But probably that didnt happen... 3) the other table The other table couldnt play the board. So both sides are non-offending (L82C is applicable here I think). That means 3NT made for the declaring side and 3NT -1 for the other 8both as the most favourable likely result). So for the result there are two numbers: (sth like 20-10 for one team and 15-15 for the other) For the carry over afterwards the score is to manage like L86B. So +13 for one side (600; 150) an + 7 (-100; 150) for the other. The average is: +3 imps than for the EW side (that is what was decided by the AC, wasnt it?). > Now the winners claim that the > carry-over plays a crucial part in their teams performance. Knowing that > they had a comfortable lead, they played not as sharp as they could have. I didnt change the AC decision, but this should not be a valid argument in a discussion about the decision of an appeal... urks.... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 22:28:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:28:13 +1000 Received: from mta3.mail.telepac.pt (mail7.telepac.pt [194.65.3.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02303 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:28:07 +1000 Received: from default ([194.65.226.158]) by mta3.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail v03.02.07 118-124-101) with SMTP id <19990420122726.BMBK23833@default> for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:27:26 +0100 X-Sender: np93je@mail.telepac.pt X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:27:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Rui Marques Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please In-Reply-To: <86256759.003BA1D4.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <19990420122726.BMBK23833@default> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:42 PM 4/20/99 +0200, Christian Farwig wrote: >Hi, > >in the recently played German team championship, we had a pretty strange >case and I would ask you for your opionions about the decisions by both TD >and AC. > >Computer-dealt hands with screens, table 2 of 19: > >N O S W >1NT p p p > >After the last pass and East lead of the HK, both South and West discover >that 1NT was bid. Both players did not spot the bidding card on the tray! >TD is called. > 1NT should have been the final contract. South and West passed, and it is their own misunderstanding if they haven=B4t seen 1NT. Very similar to a non-seen double in the last European Pairs.=20 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 23:37:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:37:11 +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 XAA02527 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:36:55 +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; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:33:46 +0100 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 OAA24338 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:32:07 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: [BridgeBums] Bridge On-Line In-Reply-To: <425b1879.244d0564@aol.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:29:29 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 Lesley wtote: > OK where's the best place to do it? I seem to remember finding a good site > months ago when I was last on line, they played SAYC but I somehow survived. > I've heard about of BT WirePlay - anyone got any personal experience of any > on-line bridge and if so please give us all some feedback! I've never played online bridge (too many addictions already), but I know Fliss uses OKBridge ... Fliss? There are several alternatives listed at . --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 23:51:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:51:00 +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 XAA02565 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:50:35 +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; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:48:45 +0100 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 OAA24983 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:47:30 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: [BridgeBums] Re: Semi final Lead problem In-Reply-To: <000001be891d$20ba74e0$e6bc883e@rd> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:44:52 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 Richard Dunn wrote: > A post script though. In the fact the hands were: > > North: xx,KT9x,KT9x,KJT > South AK,Qxx,Qxx,Axxxx > > so North misdescribed her hand in auction B by chosing not to show her 4 > hearts (I'm not critising mind) - can your analysis tell us how often this > is (a) the winning course of action, (b) irrelevant, (c) losing course of > action. Well, I could easily find out how often it makes a difference *assuming double dummy play*, but since one advantage of not mentioning the hearts is that it gives away less information, it's not clear how relevant this would be. It's harder to take account of the lack of information, since double-dummy solvers don't pay any attention to the bidding! In general terms, of course, there's less reason to look for a 4-4 major fit at IMPs than at pairs, although in this case I'd have been a bit worried about having a small doubleton and no aces. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 20 23:54:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:54:38 +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 XAA02587 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:54:30 +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; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:53:49 +0100 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 OAA25108 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:50:35 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Sorry! Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:47:57 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 I'm getting as bad as Herman! Sorry for the two irrelevant messages I just sent with "[BridgeBums]" in the subject line: I typed in the wrong alias. --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 00:02:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:02:41 +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 AAA02613 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:02:35 +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 QAA04094; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:01:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA04283; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:01:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:01:59 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Christian Farwig cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please In-Reply-To: <86256759.003BA1D4.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Christian Farwig wrote: > N O S W > 1NT p p p > > After the last pass and East lead of the HK, both South and West discover > that 1NT was bid. Both players did not spot the bidding card on the tray! > TD is called. Assuming that NE pushed the tray to the other side of the screen in such a way that it was clear to SW that NE had bid and it was their turn, then the result stands. > Since the board was not played yet, the TD decides to reshuffle it. The > team of E/W loses 13 IMPs on this new board because of a severe mistake on > one table. > > After the match, the team of E/W appeal against the decision. The AC > decided that the reshuffle was improper, canceled the reshuffled board and > assigned an artifical score. The players couldn't play the board because of a mistake by the TD. It's impossible to determine a bridge result now that the board has been shuffled, so I believe the artificial score should be +3 imp's for both sides. 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 Apr 21 00:11:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:11:43 +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 AAA03161 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:11:16 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob (dialup-022.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.214]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA37356 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:10:23 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <002d01be8b37$c90a2520$d6307dc2@tsvecfob> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Wake up Alert Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:12:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01BE8B40.29912B20" 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_002A_01BE8B40.29912B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pairs-Nil All N E S W P P 1NT Dbl P* P RDbl P 2D** P P P North had a weakish hand with 5 Diamonds and 4 Clubs and was happy to = take his chances in 1NTX. As soon as he passed he realised that it was = now compulsory for South to Redouble. South duly alerted North's Pass and Redoubled. North bid 2D which was = alerted by South as showing a weak hand with Diamonds and Spades. This = was indeed their agreement and their system notes backed this up. South holding 4 Diamonds and a doubleton Spade passed 2D and cashed 8 = top tricks for a 80% score to N/S. East held an inviational hand with a broken 5-card Spade suit and felt = hard done by when it transpired that his side could make at least 9 = tricks in a Spade contract. I sympathised with East but let the score stand. I am concerned that South had been woken up by his partner's alert but = on the other hand I feel he will be woken up by his partner's Redouble = whether there is an alert or not. Did I miss something? Regards, Fearghal ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BE8B40.29912B20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pairs-Nil All
 
N       =20 E       =20 S           =20 W
P       =20 P       =20 1NT        Dbl
P*      =20 P       =20 RDbl        P
2D**   =20 P       =20 P           =20 P
 
North had a weakish hand with 5 Diamonds and 4 Clubs = and was=20 happy to take his chances in 1NTX.  As soon as he passed he = realised that=20 it was now compulsory for South to Redouble.
 
South duly alerted North's Pass and Redoubled.  = North bid=20 2D which was alerted by South as showing a weak hand with Diamonds and=20 Spades.  This was indeed their agreement and their system notes = backed this=20 up.
 
South holding 4 Diamonds and a doubleton Spade = passed 2D and=20 cashed 8 top tricks for a 80% score to N/S.
 
East held an inviational hand with a broken 5-card = Spade suit=20 and felt hard done by when it transpired that his side could make at = least 9=20 tricks in a Spade contract.
 
I sympathised with East but let the score = stand.
 
I am concerned that South had been woken up by his = partner's=20 alert but on the other hand I feel he will be woken up by his partner's = Redouble=20 whether there is an alert or not.
 
Did I miss something?
 
Regards,
Fearghal
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01BE8B40.29912B20-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 00:28:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:28:06 +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 AAA04971 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:27:59 +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 QAA30115 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:27:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JA9GRANHQA000H9S@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:26:58 +0100 Received: by AGRO005S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <2Z4QZGG6>; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:26:57 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:26:32 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Reshuffle, please To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C194@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 Nothing new under the sun( wasn't it Shakespeare saying something like that, Grattan will for sure solve this). In Geneva 1990 our grandmaster himself, Edgar Kaplan had a similar experience being 'partner' of an unnoticed 1 club opening. The TD decided what the AC did here and Edgar appealed to the Rules and Regulations Committee, of which Grattan was a member if I remember well. The R&RC upheld the TD-decision. So, if we do not need to invent new soluitions again and again, there it is. I have noticed very many ignorent AC's and TD's concerning calculation. And I have decided to start writing a booklet about that and related subjects. I would like to ask Herman to join me. The AC here took a wrong calculating decision, which is terrible and should be noticed by the TD. That is why I would like to have a competent TD in every AC. Christian could have avoided it, since he was in the EBL TD-course in '93 (if I remember well) where we taught the right thing. If half of the time 3NT will be made for 600, then half of the time the score is 450 for 10 imps. The other half gives -250 for - 6 imps and so the average is 2 imps. These differences in teams most of the time are small, but making the same mistake in pairs can make a huge difference. Last remark: They did not give an adjusted artificial score, but an adjusted assigned score. ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Christian Farwig [mailto:Christian_Farwig@ac.com] Verzonden: dinsdag 20 april 1999 12:43 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Reshuffle, please Hi, in the recently played German team championship, we had a pretty strange case and I would ask you for your opionions about the decisions by both TD and AC. Computer-dealt hands with screens, table 2 of 19: N O S W 1NT p p p After the last pass and East lead of the HK, both South and West discover that 1NT was bid. Both players did not spot the bidding card on the tray! TD is called. N/S have 25 HCP in common (17 vs. 8). 3NT is a make if played by North, because the normal heart-lead will give declarer his ninth trick. If the contract is played by South, the contract will most likely fail. Since the board was not played yet, the TD decides to reshuffle it. The team of E/W loses 13 IMPs on this new board because of a severe mistake on one table. After the match, the team of E/W appeal against the decision. The AC decided that the reshuffle was improper, canceled the reshuffled board and assigned an artifical score. Since the N/S-pair at the other table plays a 14-16 NT, the AC decided that 3NT will always be reached. Assuming that half of the time the contract will be allowed to make, they scored the other table as 250 (600 - 100 / 2), making it 3 IMPs to the team of E/W (assuming 9 tricks after the heart-lead). The team of N/S now wants to appeal, with four VP hanging on the decisions. Final point: The N/S-team made it into the final with their opponents having a carry-over of 12 VP. The N/S-team lost the final 20:22 (10 + 12) VP, only 2 VP short of total victory. If the AC's decision will be changed, the carry-over would only be 8 VP... Now the winners claim that the carry-over plays a crucial part in their teams performance. Knowing that they had a comfortable lead, they played not as sharp as they could have. Thanks for your opinions, Christian n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 00:54:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:54:02 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05153 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:53:51 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA01866 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:53:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA05394 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:53:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904201453.KAA05394@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A strange revoke X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > > It is interesting that L61B is violated, and L63B applies, even when > > the revoking defender asks the non-revoking defender. I'm not sure > > that makes a whole lot of sense, but it seems to be what the language > > says. Are there official interpretations on this point? > > Well, it was not that one defender asked the other, but > rather that the reply from the other was used to awaken the > first defender. What are you getting at here? L61B and 63B talk about disallowed questions. They don't talk about awakening or about replies. So as far as I can tell, _any_ illegal question brings these laws into effect, regardless of whether there are direct consequences or not. I'd have thought that L63B would take effect at the instant the revoking player asked his (non-revoking) partner about a revoke, no matter what did or did not transpire later on. I was asking if there was an official interpretation on this in order to see whether I understand the law. Are you saying the _reason_ for wording the laws this way is that one defender may wake himself up by asking his partner? I guess that makes sense, and it is certainly simpler not to worry about who asked whom. > Wouldn't you rule that "don't you have spades ?" is the same > as "partner, this is a spade trick!" and should incur the > same penalties? Yes, I think so, although here in the ACBL we don't have experience with L61B, so perhaps my opinion should be discounted. But the sense of either one seems to be a question about a possible revoke, and as far as I can tell, that's all we need to know. Maybe it's my lack of experience with 61B that leaves me surprised by some of its consequences. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 00:55:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:55:27 +1000 Received: from mpcmr1002.ac.com (MPCMR1002.ac.com [170.252.160.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05184 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:55:20 +1000 Received: from emehm1101.ac.com (EMEHM1101.ac.com [10.2.102.45]) by mpcmr1002.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA02422 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:52:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id 86256759.0052056D ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:55:53 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <86256759.0051FF5E.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:44:46 +0200 Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" >>The players couldn't play the board because of a mistake by the TD. It's impossible to determine a bridge result now that the board has been shuffled, so I believe the artificial score should be +3 imp's for both sides.<< That doesn't seems right to me. Actually, N/S made a mistake and E/W should be able to Gain some IMPs because of that. I like the AC's approach better, because they tried to determine the likely result without the infraction (reshuffle), thereby restoring equity. Just my 2c worth, Christian n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 01:08:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:08:02 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA05253 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:07:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA02421 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:07:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA05420 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:07:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:07:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904201507.LAA05420@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Look, Steve, you know how I act by now! If I need to know what the > player intended then I shall ask him and I do not expect him to tell me > lies. > > So, do I need to know? Your original question stated that you knew the player's intent but said nothing about how you found out. I thought my reply (and John's) was clear enough. No, you do not need to ask if you don't know, and moreover it would be a TD mistake to ask. Are we missing something? What your original question reveals is that you need to know whether the player has already communicated his intent to the rest of the table. Until now, I wouldn't have thought to find out about that. But the TD should ask about past revelations in a way that will not reveal the player's intent if he hasn't already shown it. I'd like to hear John's opinion, but perhaps the best approach is first to ask the other three players whether anything they saw or heard revealed which card the player intended. Depending on their answer, you can then offer the appropriate options to the clumsy player. > The idea that a beginner would be at a disadvantage is abhorrent, and > I can find *no* justification for that in the Laws. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Beginners often do things they shouldn't do, like blurt out what their intentions were or a correction to an insufficient bid, or show cards they shouldn't show, or fail to exercise their rights in timely fashion, or lots of other things. It's unfortunate that these mistakes often have irremediable consequences, but unless you are prepared to waive application of the laws for beginners, there doesn't seem to be anything to be done except educate them for the next time. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 01:25:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:25:48 +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 BAA05317 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:25:42 +1000 Received: from localhost by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA25627 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:25:35 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Reshuffle, please In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C194@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Kooijman, A. wrote: > Nothing new under the sun( wasn't it Shakespeare saying something like that, No, that one is biblical. Ecclesiastes, but I need a bible for chapter and verse. -- Richard Lighton |"We won't wait long." (lighton@idt.net)|"No. We might change our minds. We'll get married first." Wood-Ridge NJ |"And change our minds afterwards?" USA |"That's the usual course." --W. S. Gilbert (Iolanthe) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 01:30:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:30:53 +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 BAA05341 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:30:46 +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 LAA12078 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904201530.LAA13213@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <002d01be8b37$c90a2520$d6307dc2@tsvecfob> Subject: Re: Wake up Alert Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes: > N E S W > P P 1NT Dbl > P* P RDbl P > 2D** P P P > North had a weakish hand with 5 Diamonds and 4 Clubs and was happy to > take his chances in 1NTX. As soon as he passed he realised that it > was now compulsory for South to Redouble. > I sympathised with East but let the score stand. > I am concerned that South had been woken up by his partner's alert but > on the other hand I feel he will be woken up by his partner's Redouble > whether there is an alert or not. This is correct. If N-S are not playing that pass forces redouble, then South will not redouble (except possibly as SOS if he psyched). Thus N-S has AI that South is trying to play an escape system. In any case, if North has forgotten the escape system, 2D is made less attractive by the UI that it shows spades as well. Pass is presumably not an LA. -- 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 Apr 21 01:43:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:43:35 +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 BAA05371 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:43:29 +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 KAA25825 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:42:10 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id 86256759.0056751C ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:44:20 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <86256759.00567059.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:08:35 +0200 Subject: RE: Reshuffle, please Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: >>The AC here took a wrong calculating decision, which is terrible and should be noticed by the TD. That is why I would like to have a competent TD in every AC. Christian could have avoided it, since he was in the EBL TD-course in '93 (if I remember well) where we taught the right thing.<< What a perfect memory. I wish mine would be half as good (although I remember having seen Ton there as well...). I am happy to report that I myself was in no stage involved into the proceedings. Christian n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 02:43:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:43:54 +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 CAA05646 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:43:47 +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 QAA04901 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:43:11 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 QAA13084 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:41:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990420184343.007cdb50@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:43:43 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Wake up Alert In-Reply-To: <199904201530.LAA13213@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <002d01be8b37$c90a2520$d6307dc2@tsvecfob> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Fearghal O'Boyle writes: > > N E S W > P P 1NT Dbl > P* P RDbl P > 2D** P P P > North had a weakish hand with 5 Diamonds and 4 Clubs and was happy to > take his chances in 1NTX. As soon as he passed he realised that it > was now compulsory for South to Redouble. > I sympathised with East but let the score stand. > I am concerned that South had been woken up by his partner's alert but > on the other hand I feel he will be woken up by his partner's Redouble > whether there is an alert or not. Good ruling IMO. If N had been woken up by the alert, he would have been better woken up and would have chosen the "book" bid of 2C to show clubs and diamonds instead of the foolish 2D. I am inclined to think North bid all the way in a dream, intending to play 1NTx before getting into a panic after the redouble and never being actually awaken. JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 03:50:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:50:35 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA05787 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:50:28 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10Zef4-0006PK-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:50:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:43:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please In-Reply-To: <86256759.003BA1D4.00@emehm1101.ac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <86256759.003BA1D4.00@emehm1101.ac.com>, Christian Farwig writes >Hi, > >in the recently played German team championship, we had a pretty strange >case and I would ask you for your opionions about the decisions by both TD >and AC. > >Computer-dealt hands with screens, table 2 of 19: > >N O S W >1NT p p p > >After the last pass and East lead of the HK, both South and West discover >that 1NT was bid. Both players did not spot the bidding card on the tray! >TD is called. Unlucky. We're too late for L25B. Result stands. 1N + 2 and 3N = in the other room (assigned) -- 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 Apr 21 04:10:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 04:10:28 +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 EAA05872 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 04:10:20 +1000 Received: from office.ripe.net (office.ripe.net [193.0.1.97]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA29329; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:09:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA04876; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:09:45 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:09:45 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Christian Farwig cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please In-Reply-To: <86256759.0051FF5E.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Christian Farwig wrote: > > "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > >>The players couldn't play the board because of a mistake by the TD. It's > impossible to determine a bridge result now that the board has been > shuffled, so I believe the artificial score should be +3 imp's for both > sides.<< > > That doesn't seems right to me. Actually, N/S made a mistake and E/W > should be able to Gain some IMPs because of that. Huh? In your original posting, you said that neither south nor west noticed north's opening bid, so both sides made the same mistake. Why should E/W be put in a position where they can gain, and N/S in a position where they can lose? 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 Apr 21 04:39:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 04:39:43 +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 EAA06029 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 04:39:35 +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 10ZfQe-0006xY-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:39:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:57:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two cards visible In-Reply-To: <199904201507.LAA05420@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199904201507.LAA05420@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> Look, Steve, you know how I act by now! If I need to know what the >> player intended then I shall ask him and I do not expect him to tell me >> lies. >> >> So, do I need to know? > >Your original question stated that you knew the player's intent but >said nothing about how you found out. > >I thought my reply (and John's) was clear enough. No, you do not need >to ask if you don't know, and moreover it would be a TD mistake to >ask. Are we missing something? > >What your original question reveals is that you need to know whether >the player has already communicated his intent to the rest of the >table. Until now, I wouldn't have thought to find out about that. But >the TD should ask about past revelations in a way that will not reveal >the player's intent if he hasn't already shown it. > >I'd like to hear John's opinion, when I had to rule at the table I asked the opponents whether the offender had said anything and the they said "NO, we just called the Director" (Aren't I lucky to be directing in England). At that point I could see no reason to try to establish intent and ruled as I did (L58 and 50). -- 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 Apr 21 05:25:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 05:25:14 +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 FAA06212 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 05:25:07 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h78.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA25651; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:24:55 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <371D6208.785F@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 22:28:40 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anne Jones CC: BLML Subject: Re: Law 73D-F: hesitation and deception References: <01be8acd$63ca8ca0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_2.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_2.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Anne Jones wrote: "The Legend" is an expression that Vitold uses regularly. I do not think he means that which is written is the Laws. I have in the past interpreted this freely as "historically". Maybe he means "as EK intended". Maybe Vitold would elucidate..." It may take too much place but I'll try to be as short as possible. Inner organization of any kind of human society is based so on written tradition (usually it is named as "The Laws", "The Code" etc.) as on oral one (usually it is named as "The Legend"). The most known is Christian Church: "The Holly Bible" and "The Holly Legend". Usually both part do not contradict - they supplement each other. But nevertheless one should remember that oral Legend is formed before written Laws... Usually the Legend mainly contains a lot of ethic rules and afterwards the best examples of proper conduct are included in it. I'd like to notice that "The Laws of Bridge" includes more and more ethic laws - from one edition to another. And it seems to me that the Legend is source of these supplements. I was taught to play bridge and to follow The Legend of Bridge by my teacher, he was taught by his etc. My pupils (I have hundreds of them) were taught The Legend - I hope they remember at least part of it:) By the way - I really am EK follower. Hirsch Davis wrote: "This is not the same thing at all. Here, the trance occurred with no demonstrable bridge reason. Intentional variation in tempo in an attempt to deceive is not allowed..." May be I am wrong but for me there is no difference between hesitation with AK10xx behind dummy's QJx and hesitation with KQx behind dummy's AJxx - and playing in both cases higher honour. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 05:28:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 05:28:15 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA06241 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 05:28:04 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA12925 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:27:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA05614 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:27:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:27:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904201927.PAA05614@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Christian Farwig" > After the last pass and East lead of the HK, both South and West discover > that 1NT was bid. Both players did not spot the bidding card on the tray! First question: why did South and West not spot the 1NT bid? If it was carelessness, then L21A applies. If one side was at fault, then the other side may benefit from L21B (but see below). If it was a technical malfunction, and neither side was at fault, then there should be a remedy. If the H-K lead was visible to S and W, then the auction period is over. It is then too late for L25B1, but the TD may adjust the score under L25B3. If the lead was not seen on the other side of the screen, then (unless the SO regulations provide otherwise), I would rule that the auction period is not over for S and W. Unlike some other correspondents, I don't see that L25 applies. > Since the board was not played yet, the TD decides to reshuffle it. The > team of E/W loses 13 IMPs on this new board because of a severe mistake on > one table. L6D3 gives the TD very broad powers to order a redeal. It has never been clear to me when these powers should be used. I can well imagine that a redeal would be proper if, for example, the 1NT bid had been hidden by a mechanical defect in the bidding tray. Are there official guidelines anywhere on when a redeal should be ordered? > The AC > decided that the reshuffle was improper, canceled the reshuffled board and > assigned an artifical score. It seems to me that there are two possibilities. If the reshuffle was correct, then the result on the substitute board stands. Evidently the AC decided this was not so. If the reshuffle was incorrect, then at first glance we would expect the original board to be reinstated, but it was only played at one table. Since the failure to play at the other table was due to TD error and not the fault of any player, L82C forces an adjusted score. With only one result, this has to be an artificial score under L12C1, and L86A tells us this is +3 IMPs for both sides. VP's should be calculated separately for each team on this basis; the total will probably be more than the normal number. Basically, the outcome is as if the caddy had fouled the board while carrying it to the other table. The apparently good EW result vanishes, but that's just bad luck. For all we know, EW at the other table would have gone for 1700; there is no way to tell. (If they made a serious mistake on the substitute board, this possibility is not ridiculous.) Of course there's a wrinkle in this. If a board is unplayable, one of the TD's options is to order a substitute board! So maybe the substitute board should stand even if the original decision to order it played was mistaken. I am not happy with the circularity of this reasoning. Maybe someone can explain to me why it is wrong. > Since the N/S-pair at the other table plays a > 14-16 NT, the AC decided that 3NT will always be reached. Assuming that > half of the time the contract will be allowed to make... Can it possibly be right to assign a L12C2 (or in this case L12C3) score when the board was never played at all at one table? Since L12C3 is so vague, maybe using it isn't illegal, but it certainly seems wrong to me. Also, even if the principle is correct, I fail to see that the AC's ruling treats each side as non-offending. The L12C2 scores would be +600 for NS and +100 for EW, each to be IMP'ed against +150/-150 at the original table (the result in 1NT on the actual heart lead). If the AC feels a need to invoke L12C3, I think they should give some benefit of doubt to the NOS, perhaps 60% of 3NT= to NS and 60% of 3NT-1 to EW. > they scored the other table as 250 (600 - 100 / 2), Clearly wrong, as Ton pointed out. The TD should have fixed this calculation mistake, which is a matter of Law, not fact or judgment. > Now the winners claim that the > carry-over plays a crucial part in their teams performance. Knowing that > they had a comfortable lead, they played not as sharp as they could have. This, at least, I think we can dismiss. We can redress concrete forms of damage, but only in rare and easily demonstrated cases would we consider redressing alleged psychological damage. A very interesting case. Lots of issues raised. I'd be especially interested in comments on rules for redealing. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 06:51:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 06:51:42 +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 GAA06624 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 06:51:36 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA22175 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:47:28 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904202047.PAA22175@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:47:27 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As usual, when I start to get interested in a thread it gets dropped. :( > Setting aside the red herring of whether or not the "demonstrable > bridge reason" is concerned with planning a falsecard, and slightly > changing the subject, I'd be interested in people's opinions about > this general situation: > > Suppose I have a genuine and demonstrable bridge reason for thinking, > but it is clear to me that if I hesitate, then the opponents are likely > to draw the wrong inference from my hesitation, to their disadvantage. > What are my legal and ethical obligations? I think it depends on the likelihood they will be deceived, how reasonable it is for them to be deceived, the likely damage in such cases, and the importance of my genuine bridge reason. So, for example, if I am planning a play for an overtrick, but I think my hesitation may very well mislead the opponents, one thing to consider is how likely the latter is compared to the former. If the hesitation is far more likely to generate an overtrick than the play I'm planning, I think I should avoid the hesitation. [Ethically certainly, and probably legally as well.] Obviously, I think this is a matter for case-by-case judgement, but I think ethically at least any doubt should be resolved in favor of avoiding the hesitation. > The relevant part of L73D1, which several people have referred to in > this thread, says: > > "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain > steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be > particularly careful in positions in which variations may work > to the benefit of their side." > > The law isn't very specific about what "being particularly careful" > means. No, indeed. It depends in part on whether you think the restrictions of L73d1 are or are not entirely absorbed in L73f2, or whether that law merely prescribes a method of implementation for the former. > Jeremy. > > --------------------------------- > Jeremy Rickard -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 08:16:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:16:45 +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 IAA06883 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:16:38 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-205.uunet.be [194.7.13.205]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA05386 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:15:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <371CB660.8D12F10C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 19:16:16 +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: Sorry! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > I'm getting as bad as Herman! Hardly so, your messages were at least bridge related. I'm sure I can manage a Belgian Insurance posting in here sometime. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:16:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:16:44 +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 JAA07039 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:16:38 +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 SAA15240 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:16:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0PNQC02W Tue, 20 Apr 99 18:15:54 Message-ID: <9904201815.0PNQC02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 99 18:15:54 Subject: RESHUFFLE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There was a neat book written years ago called 'Catch 22' that discussed this situation at length. Roger Pewick B>> From: "Christian Farwig" -s- B>Of course there's a wrinkle in this. If a board is unplayable, one of B>the TD's options is to order a substitute board! So maybe the B>substitute board should stand even if the original decision to order it B>played was mistaken. I am not happy with the circularity of this B>reasoning. Maybe someone can explain to me why it is wrong. Was the deck a true deck? Yes. Did each player have 13 cards? Yes. Was the deck properly shuffled and dealt? Yes. Were any cards faced prior to the opening lead? No. Were cards from two hands co-mingled? Yes, but only because the TD required it. Could the exact hands be reconstructed? ??????? If no, it looks unplayable to me. But it sure looked playable until the TD got involved. L6D says that the only time a redeal is permitted at the director's discretion is when it is compatible with the laws. In this case, there is no campatible reason for the TD to require a redeal. See L12A2,3. Do the players get to keep the Tournament Director's deposit for making a ruling without merit. Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:16:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:16:53 +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 JAA07046 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:16:46 +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 SAA15242 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:16:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0PNS902X Tue, 20 Apr 99 18:15:58 Message-ID: <9904201815.0PNS902@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 99 18:15:58 Subject: RESHUFFLE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The 1990 case seems a bit hazy. Supposedly the auction went 1C P P P? You mean that the players redealt the hand, the TD was called and awarded adjusted assigned scores [miscalculated scores] for the original hand? And this was upheld? This does not sound like what would have happened, but it seems like a good idea to know if it the proper procedure. Roger Pewick B>From: "Kooijman, A." B>Nothing new under the sun( wasn't it Shakespeare saying something like B>that, Grattan will for sure solve this). In Geneva 1990 our grandmaster B>himself, Edgar Kaplan had a similar experience being 'partner' of an B>unnoticed 1 club opening. The TD decided what the AC did here and Edgar B>appealed to the Rules and Regulations Committee, of which Grattan was a B>member if I remember well. B>The R&RC upheld the TD-decision. So, if we do not need to invent new B>soluitions again and again, there it is. B>I have noticed very many ignorent AC's and TD's concerning calculation. B>And I have decided to start writing a booklet about that and related B>subjects. I would like to ask Herman to join me. The AC here took a B>wrong calculating decision, which is terrible and should be noticed by B>the TD. That is why I would like to have a competent TD in every AC. B>Christian could have avoided it, since he was in the EBL TD-course in B>'93 (if I remember well) where we taught the right thing. If half of the B>time 3NT will be made for 600, then half of the time the score is 450 B>for 10 imps. The other half gives -250 for - 6 imps and so the average B>is 2 imps. These differences in teams most of the time are small, but B>making the same mistake in pairs can make a huge difference. B>Last remark: They did not give an adjusted artificial score, but an B>adjusted assigned score. B>ton B>Van: Christian Farwig [mailto:Christian_Farwig@ac.com] B>Hi, B>in the recently played German team championship, we had a pretty strange B>case and I would ask you for your opionions about the decisions by both B>TD and AC. B>Computer-dealt hands with screens, table 2 of 19: B>N O S W B>1NT p p p B>After the last pass and East lead of the HK, both South and West B>discover that 1NT was bid. Both players did not spot the bidding card on B>the tray! TD is called. B>N/S have 25 HCP in common (17 vs. 8). 3NT is a make if played by North, B>because the normal heart-lead will give declarer his ninth trick. If the B>contract is played by South, the contract will most likely fail. B>Since the board was not played yet, the TD decides to reshuffle it. The B>team of E/W loses 13 IMPs on this new board because of a severe mistake B>on one table. B>After the match, the team of E/W appeal against the decision. The AC B>decided that the reshuffle was improper, canceled the reshuffled board B>and assigned an artifical score. Since the N/S-pair at the other table B>plays a 14-16 NT, the AC decided that 3NT will always be reached. B>Assuming that half of the time the contract will be allowed to make, B>they scored the other table as 250 (600 - 100 / 2), making it 3 IMPs to B>the team of E/W (assuming 9 tricks after the heart-lead). The team of B>N/S now wants to appeal, with four VP hanging on the decisions. B>Final point: The N/S-team made it into the final with their opponents B>having a carry-over of 12 VP. The N/S-team lost the final 20:22 (10 + B>12) VP, only 2 VP short of total victory. If the AC's decision will be B>changed, the carry-over would only be 8 VP... Now the winners claim that B>the carry-over plays a crucial part in their teams performance. Knowing B>that they had a comfortable lead, they played not as sharp as they could B>have. B>Thanks for your opinions, B>Christian B> n n n n B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:18:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:28 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07061 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:14 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZjmI-000Av8-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:18:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:10:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A strange revoke References: <199904201453.KAA05394@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904201453.KAA05394@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> > It is interesting that L61B is violated, and L63B applies, even when >> > the revoking defender asks the non-revoking defender. I'm not sure >> > that makes a whole lot of sense, but it seems to be what the language >> > says. Are there official interpretations on this point? >> >> Well, it was not that one defender asked the other, but >> rather that the reply from the other was used to awaken the >> first defender. > >What are you getting at here? L61B and 63B talk about disallowed >questions. They don't talk about awakening or about replies. So as >far as I can tell, _any_ illegal question brings these laws into >effect, regardless of whether there are direct consequences or not. >I'd have thought that L63B would take effect at the instant the >revoking player asked his (non-revoking) partner about a revoke, no >matter what did or did not transpire later on. I was asking if there >was an official interpretation on this in order to see whether I >understand the law. > >Are you saying the _reason_ for wording the laws this way is that one >defender may wake himself up by asking his partner? I guess that makes >sense, and it is certainly simpler not to worry about who asked whom. > >> Wouldn't you rule that "don't you have spades ?" is the same >> as "partner, this is a spade trick!" and should incur the >> same penalties? > >Yes, I think so, although here in the ACBL we don't have experience >with L61B, so perhaps my opinion should be discounted. But the sense >of either one seems to be a question about a possible revoke, and as >far as I can tell, that's all we need to know. Now I have finally discovered what thia is all about - I was confused by the Easts and Wests! - both L61B and L63B seem clear enough so the ruling is in no doubt. >Maybe it's my lack of experience with 61B that leaves me surprised by >some of its consequences. I actively dislike L63B. But oddities occur with many Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:18:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:32 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07060 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:14 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZjmI-000Av7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:18:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:56:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two cards visible References: <199904201507.LAA05420@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904201507.LAA05420@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Look, Steve, you know how I act by now! If I need to know what the >> player intended then I shall ask him and I do not expect him to tell me >> lies. >> >> So, do I need to know? > >Your original question stated that you knew the player's intent but >said nothing about how you found out. > >I thought my reply (and John's) was clear enough. No, you do not need >to ask if you don't know, and moreover it would be a TD mistake to >ask. Are we missing something? > >What your original question reveals is that you need to know whether >the player has already communicated his intent to the rest of the >table. Until now, I wouldn't have thought to find out about that. But >the TD should ask about past revelations in a way that will not reveal >the player's intent if he hasn't already shown it. > >I'd like to hear John's opinion, but perhaps the best approach is first >to ask the other three players whether anything they saw or heard >revealed which card the player intended. Depending on their answer, >you can then offer the appropriate options to the clumsy player. > >> The idea that a beginner would be at a disadvantage is abhorrent, and >> I can find *no* justification for that in the Laws. > >I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Beginners often do things >they shouldn't do, like blurt out what their intentions were or a >correction to an insufficient bid, or show cards they shouldn't show, >or fail to exercise their rights in timely fashion, or lots of other >things. It's unfortunate that these mistakes often have irremediable >consequences, but unless you are prepared to waive application of the >laws for beginners, there doesn't seem to be anything to be done except >educate them for the next time. > Either we rule the card as major/minor based on the players' intent, or we don't. I cannot believe that whether we know the intent by accident has anything to do with it. Please point me to a Law justifying that. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:18:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:34 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07069 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:19 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZjmL-000Av5-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:18:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:11:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Sorry! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: >I'm getting as bad as Herman! Hmmm ! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:18:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:33 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07068 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:19 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZjmL-000Av8-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:18:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:39:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please References: <86256759.003BA1D4.00@emehm1101.ac.com> In-Reply-To: <86256759.003BA1D4.00@emehm1101.ac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Christian Farwig wrote: Most things have already been said, so I shall merely make one comment. >After the match, the team of E/W appeal against the decision. The AC >decided that the reshuffle was improper, canceled the reshuffled board and >assigned an artifical score. Since the N/S-pair at the other table plays a >14-16 NT, the AC decided that 3NT will always be reached. Assuming that >half of the time the contract will be allowed to make, they scored the >other table as 250 (600 - 100 / 2), making it 3 IMPs to the team of E/W >(assuming 9 tricks after the heart-lead). The team of N/S now wants to >appeal, with four VP hanging on the decisions. Who to? What appeal? The appeal has been heard, has it not? Or is this an appeal to the NA? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:18:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:35 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07067 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:19 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZjmL-000Av7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:18:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:25:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >All well and good, in accordance with the Laws. I've always thought that >a team pair should have the right to look over the convention card of >their opposite numbers, and ask questions if necessary as to whether the >pair has any unusual partnership understandings. Surely one might want >to be aware of what might occur at the other table when considering a >call or play. It seems to me that the Laws should address this subject, >or maybe it could be handled by regulation. I am not sure whether this is relevant to the hand in question. However, it seems a reasonable view. I believe it is a matter for regulation though, not Law: L40B, L40D and L75A make it clear that this is an open game but leave the methods of disclosure to the SOs. I am not sure that anyone has that right without such a regulation, though. In other words, I tend to agree with Marvin that players *should* have a general right to know the methods in the other room but I do not believe they have such a right now. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:18:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:36 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07070 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:19 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZjmL-000Av6-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:18:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:30:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> In-Reply-To: <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >I'm sure I'm missing something, but what conceivable infraction might >that be? South's question to West, the answer to which is basically none >of South's business? :-) >There seem to have been no UI, nor any MI. The double was neither alerted nor pre-alerted. Would you not say that the principles of Full disclosure mean that the pair have no Special Partnership Understanding in the absence of an alert? >If South was interested in any potential special meaning of the double >he should have asked East b4 removing to 7NT. In any case, it seems West >pulled off a successful psyche, getting NS out of a making and into a >failing slam. Well done! You are suggesting that South should say, before removing to 7NT: "By the way, your unalerted double does mean that you think the contract is not making, doesn't it?" LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS A. Special Partnership Agreements Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40).... There is no doubt that East-West have a Special Partnership understanding. Do you think that it was made fully and freely available to opponents? There was MI on this hand in my view. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 09:18:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:40 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07105 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:18:26 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZjmO-000Av7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:18:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:42:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wake up Alert References: <002d01be8b37$c90a2520$d6307dc2@tsvecfob> <199904201530.LAA13213@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904201530.LAA13213@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >Fearghal O'Boyle writes: > >> N E S W >> P P 1NT Dbl >> P* P RDbl P >> 2D** P P P > >> North had a weakish hand with 5 Diamonds and 4 Clubs and was happy to >> take his chances in 1NTX. As soon as he passed he realised that it >> was now compulsory for South to Redouble. > >> I sympathised with East but let the score stand. > >> I am concerned that South had been woken up by his partner's alert but >> on the other hand I feel he will be woken up by his partner's Redouble >> whether there is an alert or not. > >This is correct. If N-S are not playing that pass forces redouble, then >South will not redouble (except possibly as SOS if he psyched). Thus >N-S has AI that South is trying to play an escape system. This is fine assuming that it is correct that South will not redouble anyway. I play Houdini myself, so a redouble shows a five-card suit. If this pair had ever played that or anything like it then the ruling is less clear. > -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 11:31:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:31:02 +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 LAA07413 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:30:47 +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 10ZlqY-0003BM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:30:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:25:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please References: <199904201927.PAA05614@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904201927.PAA05614@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >If the H-K lead was visible to S and W, then the auction period is >over. It is then too late for L25B1, but the TD may adjust the score >under L25B3. I don't seem to have a L25B3 in my Law book. >> Since the board was not played yet, the TD decides to reshuffle it. The >> team of E/W loses 13 IMPs on this new board because of a severe mistake on >> one table. >L6D3 gives the TD very broad powers to order a redeal. It has never >been clear to me when these powers should be used. I can well imagine >that a redeal would be proper if, for example, the 1NT bid had been >hidden by a mechanical defect in the bidding tray. > >Are there official guidelines anywhere on when a redeal should be >ordered? Official guidelines? I doubt it! It does say "compatible with the Laws". My interpretation is that if there is another law covering what is to be done with whatever happened on the board, then this excludes a redeal. I tend to agree that this is a good example: if there was a mechanical defect of the screen or tray that caused this then a redeal is acceptable. Failure of the players to see the call is not a good enough reason - why should it be? The dealer was marked on the board, was it not? >If the reshuffle was incorrect, then at first glance we would expect >the original board to be reinstated, but it was only played at one >table. Since the failure to play at the other table was due to TD >error and not the fault of any player, L82C forces an adjusted score. >With only one result, this has to be an artificial score under L12C1, >and L86A tells us this is +3 IMPs for both sides. I think this is correct according to the Laws. >Of course there's a wrinkle in this. If a board is unplayable, one of >the TD's options is to order a substitute board! So maybe the >substitute board should stand even if the original decision to order it >played was mistaken. I am not happy with the circularity of this >reasoning. Maybe someone can explain to me why it is wrong. Why is it one of the TD's options? I do not remember that being in L12C1. >Can it possibly be right to assign a L12C2 (or in this case L12C3) >score when the board was never played at all at one table? Since >L12C3 is so vague, maybe using it isn't illegal, but it certainly >seems wrong to me. I think it is illegal. Many years ago, before I was a Director, a top English Director took a board away from us and ordered it redealt under vehement protests from our other table. This happened in Leeds, and an Appeal Committee met in Brighton, 250 miles away, at 2 am, to sort the mess out which they did at 4am! Their decision was to scrap the replacement board. The result at our table was 2D making, on the auction 1NT p p 2C [nat] p p slow dbl p 2D p p p The opposition argued that the double was probably not for penalties, an argument that did not impress me because it was not alerted. Anyway, the AC duly gave us 2C*= for +180. The AC then decided to assign a score in the other room where the board had not been played. The 1NT was a standard 12-14 one, and the other pair did not play 2C over it as natural. Since 1NT was making, there was no way that the pair in the other room holding our cards could get a plus score. The AC thus gave us +5 imps on the board as against the -8 we got on the substitute board, and this was just enough to get us into the semi-final of the Spring foursomes, my best ever result in England's premier k/o teams event. My partner, who bid 2C? Grattan Endicott, of course! The AC did not know who the people were, but after one remark Grattan made was transmitted to them, they decided that he was clearly Boris Schapiro! It is obvious from this thread that this decision by the AC would not be correct today. Whether it was at the time I do not know: it was a few Law books ago. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 12:24:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:24:10 +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 MAA07534 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:24:06 +1000 Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp269.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.27.29]) by mail.dynamite.com.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA24967 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:21:55 +1000 Message-ID: <006401be8b9d$c8338ae0$1d1b25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:22:14 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE8BF1.97170500" 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_0061_01BE8BF1.97170500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As an additional question on this hand, can a result( artificial or = assigned) be awarded when the hand was not actually played at either = table? At the first table the bidding was complete, the opening lead was made = and at this point the director was called and the hand was effectively = abandoned. Sean Mullamphy. ------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE8BF1.97170500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As an additional question on this = hand, can a=20 result( artificial or assigned)  be awarded when the hand was not = actually=20 played at either table?
At the first table = the bidding=20 was complete, the opening lead was made and at this point the director = was=20 called and the hand was effectively abandoned.
 
Sean = Mullamphy.
------=_NextPart_000_0061_01BE8BF1.97170500-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 18:25:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:25:54 +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 SAA08087 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:25:45 +1000 Received: from modem27.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.27] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10ZsKO-0007dQ-00; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:25:52 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:22:09 +0100 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 ................................................................ "Chance favours the prepared mind" (Pasteur) ================================ ---------- > From: Adam Wildavsky > To: David Stevenson > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Split/Weighted > Date: 19 April 1999 17:11 > > At 11:26 PM -0400 4/18/99, David Stevenson wrote: > >Adam Wildavsky wrote: > ------------------------ \x/ -------------------- > Either I have not made myself clear or you are confusing me with someone > else. The quality of committees has nothing to do with my abhorrence of Law > 12C3. I dislike it because it is not objective. +++++ Bridge is a game all about judgment. I doubt whether it is possible with such a game to avoid the need for judgment in applying its rules. As for laws being "objective" I do not think the word you want is really "objective", it seems to me you are thinking in terms of laws being "mechanical", producing automatic resolutions of situations? Such laws are based upon the principle that if they operate automatically and with indifference to circumstances they will distribute justice and injustice impartially and thus 'fairly'. Personally I do not think that is what the game is about or should be about. The problem you have,and one that I certainly recognize, is, I suggest, that ACs find it difficult to be objective. The quality of committee members is compromised if they are too 'involved' - by which I do not mean in the tournament concerned but that they have strong opinions which intrude into their judgment of particular cases. We all have opinions; our usefulness as committee members is enhanced by the degree to which we can stand aside from our own opinions and grasp the minds and methods of the players in front of the committee. In those areas where the law works ill if it tries to be purely mechanical I believe the principles in the laws should be expressed in terms that are as objective as possible, but I think objectivity is achieved when the committee has that quality inherent in its members. Perhaps for shortage of suitable people, it does appear that the make-up of committees is often flawed in this key aspect. It has seemed to me over the years that it has often been a question of whether the committee chairman has the understanding of this and the strength to lead his committee along that path. +++++ > > So the last question: would the majority agree with you? +++++ Now what has that got to do with it? The majority will be wrong! :-)) +++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 18:42:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:42:39 +1000 Received: from nbrmr1002.ac.com (NBRMR1002.ac.com [170.252.248.71]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA08131 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:42:33 +1000 Received: from emehm1101.ac.com ([170.252.192.148]) by nbrmr1002.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA18828 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:31:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.2 (693.3 8-11-1998)) id 8625675A.002FE823 ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:43:16 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AC_TELEKOM@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING From: "Christian Farwig" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <8625675A.002FE101.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:23:50 +0200 Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > >>The players couldn't play the board because of a mistake by the TD. It's > impossible to determine a bridge result now that the board has been > shuffled, so I believe the artificial score should be +3 imp's for both > sides.<< > > That doesn't seems right to me. Actually, N/S made a mistake and E/W > should be able to Gain some IMPs because of that. Huh? In your original posting, you said that neither south nor west noticed north's opening bid, so both sides made the same mistake. Why should E/W be put in a position where they can gain, and N/S in a position where they can lose?<< I didn't say N/S were guilty. But they screwed up the bidding and were destined for a losing IMPs before the TD came into action. AC should restore the state BEFORE the infraction, meaning that N/W have to lose on this board. Christian n n n n From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 18:49:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:49:59 +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 SAA08159 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:49:51 +1000 Received: from pabs03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.172] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10ZshT-0006EO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:49:44 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:26:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8b95$f5c578e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 12:38 AM Subject: Re: Full disclosure >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>All well and good, in accordance with the Laws. I've always thought that >>a team pair should have the right to look over the convention card of >>their opposite numbers, and ask questions if necessary as to whether the >>pair has any unusual partnership understandings. Surely one might want >>to be aware of what might occur at the other table when considering a >>call or play. It seems to me that the Laws should address this subject, >>or maybe it could be handled by regulation. > > I am not sure whether this is relevant to the hand in question. >However, it seems a reasonable view. I believe it is a matter for >regulation though, not Law: L40B, L40D and L75A make it clear that this >is an open game but leave the methods of disclosure to the SOs. > > I am not sure that anyone has that right without such a regulation, >though. In other words, I tend to agree with Marvin that players >*should* have a general right to know the methods in the other room but >I do not believe they have such a right now. Oh Dear.. David agrees with Marvin. This could be a first? I also followed this line. David, you should have said you agreed with me:-)) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 19:12:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA08213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:12:21 +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 TAA08207 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:12:14 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-172.uunet.be [194.7.13.172]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13243 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <371D0227.98894743@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:39:35 +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: Reshuffle, please References: <199904201927.PAA05614@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > A very interesting case. Lots of issues raised. I'd be especially > interested in comments on rules for redealing. Well, whatever else this issue raises, it is that the director's error has not led to a board being dropped. A new board was played, and this board has counted. Even if the director has gotten it wrong, this should have been the last of it. Well, that's my opinion. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 20:06:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:06:02 +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 UAA08402 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:05:53 +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 MAA00835; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:05:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01428; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:05:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:05:17 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Christian Farwig cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please In-Reply-To: <8625675A.002FE101.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Christian Farwig wrote: > > "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > >>The players couldn't play the board because of a mistake by the TD. > It's > > impossible to determine a bridge result now that the board has been > > shuffled, so I believe the artificial score should be +3 imp's for both > > sides.<< > > > > That doesn't seems right to me. Actually, N/S made a mistake and E/W > > should be able to Gain some IMPs because of that. > > Huh? In your original posting, you said that neither south nor west > noticed north's opening bid, so both sides made the same mistake. Why > should E/W be put in a position where they can gain, and N/S in a position > where they can lose?<< > > I didn't say N/S were guilty. But they screwed up the bidding and were > destined for a losing IMPs before the TD came into action. No, both South and West made the same mistake: they did not look at the bidding cards on the tray. It is a random coincidence that NS were about to lose points on the hand (e.g. the auction could have been P-1N instead of 1N-P, or west has a hand where he should have acted over 1N-P-P, or south would normally have bid 2NT, but 1NT is the limit, etc, etc). > AC should restore the state BEFORE the infraction, meaning that N/W have > to lose on this board. "Pass" by south and west _IS_ a legal bid, so, IMHO, they did not violate any law, so there is no infraction, just a severe mistake by both south and, in this particular case, to a lesser extend by west. 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 Apr 21 22:29:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:29:22 +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 WAA08802 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:29:14 +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 IAA14623 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:30:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 PM 4/20/99 +0100, David wrote: > I am not sure whether this is relevant to the hand in question. >However, it seems a reasonable view. I believe it is a matter for >regulation though, not Law: L40B, L40D and L75A make it clear that this >is an open game but leave the methods of disclosure to the SOs. > > I am not sure that anyone has that right without such a regulation, >though. In other words, I tend to agree with Marvin that players >*should* have a general right to know the methods in the other room but >I do not believe they have such a right now. Your right to full disclosure includes the right to be informed of anything that may affect your opponents' bidding beyond their general bridge knowledge and experience. "Opponents" refers apecifically to your at-the-table opponents, but, OTOH, their teammates methods may be a factor in their bidding decisions, and certainly aren't general bridge knowledge or experience. I therefore interpret the law as giving you the right to know as much about your at-the-table opponents' teammates' methods as they themselves do, but no more. You may ask questions (and the opponents must be forthcoming), but may not, for example, request a copy of their teammates' CC. 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 Apr 21 22:32:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:32:35 +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 WAA08818 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:32:27 +1000 Received: from pb8s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.185] helo=pacific) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10ZwAn-0000BO-00; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:32:13 +0100 Message-ID: <006201be8bf2$cee95fe0$b9a593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "blml" Subject: Re: RESHUFFLE Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:02:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: blml Date: 21 April 1999 00:42 Subject: RESHUFFLE > >The 1990 case seems a bit hazy. > ...... \x/ .............. >Roger Pewick > >B>From: "Kooijman, A." > > >B>Nothing new under the sun( wasn't it Shakespeare saying something like >B>that, Grattan will for sure solve this). In Geneva 1990 our grandmaster >B>himself, Edgar Kaplan had a similar experience being 'partner' of an >B>unnoticed 1 club opening. The TD decided what the AC did here and Edgar >B>appealed to the Rules and Regulations Committee, of which Grattan was a >B>member if I remember well. > >B>The R&RC upheld the TD-decision. So, if we do not need to invent new >B>soluitions again and again, there it is. > ................ \x/ ................. +++++ The 1990 case was a landmark case. Edgar appealed the Regulations to a joint meeting, as the regulations provided, of the R&R Committee and the WBF Executive. (Guess who had largely drafted the regs? - although I think d'Orsi was the Chairman of the R&R). Edgar had put down and released a green card, not having noticed that his partner had bid; the regulations did not permit him to change it and Schoder - I think in person (!) - did not allow the call to be changed. Edgar's chief ground for appeal was that the screens regulation was in conflict with the laws and that Law 80F forbade this. I was a member of the R&R but my more significant role, as Vice Chairman of the WBFLC in the 'absence' of its Chairman, was to enunciate and explain the relevant matters of law in relation to the arguments that Edgar had propounded. In rejecting the appeal the most far reaching finding was that the provisions of Law 80F apply to regulations made under Law 80F and not to regulations made using powers granted in other sections of the laws - here 80E. Edgar also had a somewhat obscure argument that Law 21A had no relevance; as I recall I went to the front of the book for evidence of the direction in which a Director was pointed in the circumstances. Something in the definitions, I think, which may have mysteriously vanished from today's code - I must check on that when I get home today. Edgar was, of course, an advocate and could argue either side of a case with apparent conviction. Somewhat amusingly - ? - we have now acquired Law 25B and I have my suspicions that it grew from Edgar's experience in 1990. He had a long memory. However, I think even more amusingly, the 1990 landmark decision, not subsequently changed, means that screen regulations can, if the SO wishes, conflict with Law 25B when made under 80E. [It would perhaps call for careful wording of the regs]. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 22:32:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:32:44 +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 WAA08825 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:32:36 +1000 Received: from pb8s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.185] helo=pacific) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10ZwAm-0000BO-00; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:32:12 +0100 Message-ID: <006101be8bf2$ce30be40$b9a593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Sorry! Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:01:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 21 April 1999 00:39 Subject: Re: Sorry! >Jeremy Rickard wrote: >>I'm getting as bad as Herman! > > Hmmm ! > ++ Didn't we think all Herman's messages were 'insurance'? ++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 22:33:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:33:17 +1000 Received: from sand3.global.net.uk (sand3.global.net.uk [194.126.80.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08847 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:33:10 +1000 Received: from pb8s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.185] helo=pacific) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10ZwAp-0000BO-00; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:32:16 +0100 Message-ID: <006301be8bf2$d0391160$b9a593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan" , "David Stevenson" , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:27:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; Adam Wildavsky Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 21 April 1999 10:03 Subject: Re: Split/Weighted >Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee >................................................................ >"Chance favours the prepared mind" > (Pasteur) >================================ > ---------- >> From: Adam Wildavsky >> To: David Stevenson >> Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> Subject: Re: Split/Weighted >> Date: 19 April 1999 17:11 >> >> At 11:26 PM -0400 4/18/99, David Stevenson wrote: >> >Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> >------------------------ \x/ -------------------- >> Either I have not made myself clear or you are confusing me with someone >> else. The quality of committees has nothing to do with my abhorrence of Law >> 12C3. I dislike it because it is not objective. > and I said (I suppose I can talk to myself?) : >+++++ Bridge is a game all about judgment. I doubt whether it is >possible with such a game to avoid the need for judgment in >applying its rules. As for laws being "objective" I do not think >the word you want is really "objective", it seems to me you are >thinking in terms of laws being "mechanical", producing >automatic resolutions of situations? Such laws are based upon >the principle that if they operate automatically and with >indifference to circumstances they will distribute justice and >injustice impartially and thus 'fairly'. Personally I do not think >that is what the game is about or should be about. > ----------------- \x/ ------------------- ++++ With 1990 in the air (see a parallel posting) I am reminded of the justice/injustice of such a mechanical regulation which gave no leeway for alteration of scores the morning after. Canadians may (!) recall it too and Edgar inveighed against the ruling in print but agreed, reluctantly, in the AC deliberations that the regulation was inescapable. Having now the benefit of mellow hindsight I think the AC could perhaps have tried an option of referring the matter to the WBF Executive, saying "the regulation gives the AC no power to change this score on a late appeal. If the Executive cares to change the regulation post facto the AC would be prepared to reconsider its decision". Mind you I wonder if the AC would then have said......... oh but that is another story. Pigeons and a cat spring to mind. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ ############################################# Note that after 1300 hours GMT today Gester goes abroad for a couple of weeks - and so also Hermes a little later on in the day. [21 Ap1999.] ############################################# From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 21 22:40:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:40:54 +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 WAA08896 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:40:48 +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 IAA15225 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990421084203.006ede44@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:42:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:30 PM 4/20/99 +0100, David wrote: >Jan Kamras wrote: > >>I'm sure I'm missing something, but what conceivable infraction might >>that be? South's question to West, the answer to which is basically none >>of South's business? :-) >>There seem to have been no UI, nor any MI. > > The double was neither alerted nor pre-alerted. Would you not say >that the principles of Full disclosure mean that the pair have no >Special Partnership Understanding in the absence of an alert? > >>If South was interested in any potential special meaning of the double >>he should have asked East b4 removing to 7NT. In any case, it seems West >>pulled off a successful psyche, getting NS out of a making and into a >>failing slam. Well done! > > You are suggesting that South should say, before removing to 7NT: "By >the way, your unalerted double does mean that you think the contract is >not making, doesn't it?" > >LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS > >A. Special Partnership Agreements > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must > be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40).... > > There is no doubt that East-West have a Special Partnership >understanding. Do you think that it was made fully and freely available >to opponents? > > There was MI on this hand in my view. How is this different from, say, late in a matchpoint event when you are behind and know that you need tops, averages won't do? In this position, you will double a grand slam with only the vaguest hope of beating it; your double by no means says that you think they won't make it. Or should that position be alerted as well? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 00:13:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:13:23 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA10418 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:12:59 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA08279 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:12:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA06168 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:12:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:12:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904211412.KAA06168@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > There is no doubt that East-West have a Special Partnership > understanding. You consider that West's knowledge of what his teammates in the other room will do is a _partnership_ understanding? I agree there is something unsavory about this case. West is making a bridge decision based on information that an opponent would have liked to know, but I find it hard to see that the laws require it to be disclosed. Just how far are you prepared to go? Must West disclose his teammates bidding methods? Their level of skill? Their tendencies in competitive auctions? In principle, all this could be useful, but it's hard to see a practical method for disclosure. Of course there is no doubt that NS in the other room must disclose their special agreement -- "We never bid a grand slam." -- to their own at-the-table opponents if there is a relevant auction. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 00:50:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:50:39 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11698 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:50:24 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA09723 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA06209 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:50:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904211450.KAA06209@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: Reshuffle, please > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >If the H-K lead was visible to S and W, then the auction period is > >over. It is then too late for L25B1, but the TD may adjust the score > >under L25B3. > > I don't seem to have a L25B3 in my Law book. Aargh! I did proofread, just not very well. L21B3, of course. If there is MI, and it's too late for a change of call, the TD can adjust the score. (We all knew that!) > >Are there official guidelines anywhere on when a redeal should be > >ordered? > > Official guidelines? I doubt it! Perhaps there should be, then. Even in the simplest cases (e.g. board unplayable through no fault of any player), there seems to be an option either to redeal or to give a L12C1 artificial score. (L86C gives one restriction.) It would be helpful to have guidelines as to when to prefer each option. > [L6D3] does say "compatible with the Laws". My interpretation is that if > there is another law covering what is to be done with whatever happened > on the board, then this excludes a redeal. That sounds pretty reasonable! > >Of course there's a wrinkle in this. If a board is unplayable, one of > >the TD's options is to order a substitute board! > Why is it one of the TD's options? I do not remember that being in > L12C1. No, it's in L6D3. But now I see your point. There is a specific law (82C) telling us what to do in case of an incorrect ruling, and it points to L12, not to L6. So it is _never_ right to redeal as a result of an incorrect ruling, even if our sense of equity might in some cases prefer that. OK, that's clear now. Good. Of course if the TD spills the cards out of the board while carrying it to the table, a redeal is fine. This may be a TD error, but it isn't an incorrect ruling. Thanks for all the clarifications and the anecdote. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 01:06:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:06:12 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f179.hotmail.com [207.82.251.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11808 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:05:48 +1000 Received: (qmail 82335 invoked by uid 0); 21 Apr 1999 15:09:57 -0000 Message-ID: <19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:09:56 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:09:56 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Jan Kamras wrote: > >>I'm sure I'm missing something, but what conceivable infraction might >>that be? South's question to West, the answer to which is basically none >>of South's business? :-) >>There seem to have been no UI, nor any MI. > >You are suggesting that South should say, before removing to 7NT:"By >the way, your unalerted double does mean that you think the contract >is not making, doesn't it?" > >LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS > >A. Special Partnership Agreements > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must > be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40).... > > > > There is no doubt that East-West have a Special Partnership >understanding. Do you think that it was made fully and freely available >to opponents? > Oh, I think there is doubt that there is a SPU. *West* certainly knows that their partners won't bid the GS, but I have never heard anything that says the East knew, or if she did, whether it was a partnership understanding (though I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise, by information in the first case, and logic in the second). It is my belief that L75 only concerns information about the partners' own bidding system. Let me change the example, hopefully slightly, in order to show what I mean. Ian and I are hosting our OKB mentees at the Toronto Regional. We decide to play in a KO game, and play mentor/novice pairs for the first half. Down by 15, we decide to switch around for the second half, and Ian and I are in against the grand in the example. Ian doubles. I can work out that our novice partners are highly unlikely to bid the GS (not "not allowed", mind you, but one of them has played exactly one in her life, and the other I think doesn't have that much experience), so a psychic double is similarly "risk-free". Ian doubles (and he also can work this out). Should I delayed alert the double of 7S ("Systematically Lightner, but our partners aren't going to bid the GS, so could be psychic?" - remember we aren't allowed to have any agreements about psychs in the ACBL. Ok, this is Toronto, Belgium :-) or maybe "Just to let you know, there are the Standard Two Chances that the GS will be bid at the other table" (slim and none) and let them work it out for themselves?) And, in a related case, when the Director gets called afterward to deal with the delayed alert (correcting back from 7NT to 7S), and I lead my diamond, and the slam goes down on the ruff, because strangely enough, he had a standard Lightner, now what? (thinking about this, I can see a related thread coming in here. I know it's localish to the ACBL right now, but what do we do when delayed alerts cause a partnership to want to change their bidding decision?) And is there any Special Partnership Understanding, anywhere? - remember we have never talked about this, and neither of us really know what system our other pair plays. > There was MI on this hand in my view. I don't think so. The agreement was "Lightner". There was an agreement, known at least by West, that their other pair at the table was "not allowed" to bid the GS (whatever that means), but I don't know if that makes any sort of, even implicit, partnership agreement between the E and W at this table. As I said, I am willing to be convinced. On a related thread (as it was brought in already), I think knowing the system of the other pair (or at least knowing at least as much about it as your opponents do) should be inside Full Disclosure, if it isn't already. After all, is there a difference here between this case and the case where West makes a risky defensive play against 3NT-N because he knows that his teammates play a weak NT, 3NT is going to be reached from the South side, and is cold from that side? If the risky play fails, the most they can "lose" is the overtrick or three. Oh, and my partner can work this out, too. Are you going to complain that there is MI or a CPU here? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 01:31:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:31:38 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA11906 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:31:26 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ZyxT-00027I-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:30:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:49:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Split/Weighted References: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <9M4iE4BLJqG3EwSk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 11:26 PM -0400 4/18/99, David Stevenson wrote: >>That is the problem: you are >>known to dislike L12C3 because of poor Committees: that does not make >>much sense when compared with the total mangling of L12C2 and L12C1 that >>we see when a North American committee goes mad! This comment by me was unfair. I have misread an earlier one of Adam's articles. >Either I have not made myself clear or you are confusing me with someone >else. The quality of committees has nothing to do with my abhorrence of Law >12C3. I dislike it because it is not objective. OK. It was my mistake. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 01:41:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:41:08 +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 BAA11930 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:41:02 +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 10Zz7O-0002Vg-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:40:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:49:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Split/Weighted References: <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003c01be89bb$993612a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <9M4iE4BLJqG3EwSk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 11:26 PM -0400 4/18/99, David Stevenson wrote: >>That is the problem: you are >>known to dislike L12C3 because of poor Committees: that does not make >>much sense when compared with the total mangling of L12C2 and L12C1 that >>we see when a North American committee goes mad! This comment by me was unfair. I have misread an earlier one of Adam's articles. >Either I have not made myself clear or you are confusing me with someone >else. The quality of committees has nothing to do with my abhorrence of Law >12C3. I dislike it because it is not objective. OK. It was my mistake. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 01:53:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:53:18 +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 BAA11964 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:53:12 +1000 Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA15440 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:52:57 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > I am not sure that anyone has that right without such a regulation, > though. In other words, I tend to agree with Marvin that players > *should* have a general right to know the methods in the other room but > I do not believe they have such a right now. > I believe that in general you do not have the right to know the methods of opponents at the other table, any more than you have the right to know the methods of other pairs not at your table in a pairs event. Even in team games it seems unreasonable. I doubt if any of our team mates in the last 8 years or so could answer with anything better than "something weird!" Why on earth do you require someone to learn even the most basic things about a system that he is not playing against? I often could not tell you the strength of team mates 1NT opening, and I certainly would not expect them to know mine. -- Richard Lighton |"We won't wait long." (lighton@idt.net)|"No. We might change our minds. We'll get married first." Wood-Ridge NJ |"And change our minds afterwards?" USA |"That's the usual course." --W. S. Gilbert (Iolanthe) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 01:55:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:55:38 +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 BAA11984 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:55:31 +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 LAA26829 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:55:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904211555.LAA27144@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:30:28 -0400) Subject: Re: Full disclosure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > Your right to full disclosure includes the right to be informed of anything > that may affect your opponents' bidding beyond their general bridge > knowledge and experience. "Opponents" refers apecifically to your > at-the-table opponents, but, OTOH, their teammates methods may be a factor > in their bidding decisions, and certainly aren't general bridge knowledge > or experience. How about a situation in which your opponents' teammates' methods may influence your decisions, but not have a direct effect on your opponents' decisions? For example, at board-a-match, you open a weak 1NT and are passed out, missing a 4-4 spade fit which looks like it will gain an extra trick. Are you entitled to know whether the player sitting in your seat at the other table is playing a strong 1NT (in which case you must play abnormally in order to try to make the same number of tricks that he does)? The defenders do have this information available; if their teammates are playing strong NT, they know that the auction will be different at the other table, and as soon as the 4-4 spade fit becomes evident, they can play for -90 to win the board. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 02:03:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 02:03:47 +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 CAA12192 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 02:03:40 +1000 Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA23558 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:03:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:03:21 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > Jan Kamras wrote: > > >I'm sure I'm missing something, but what conceivable infraction might > >that be? South's question to West, the answer to which is basically none > >of South's business? :-) > >There seem to have been no UI, nor any MI. > > The double was neither alerted nor pre-alerted. Would you not say > that the principles of Full disclosure mean that the pair have no > Special Partnership Understanding in the absence of an alert? > > LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS > > A. Special Partnership Agreements > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must > be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40).... > > There is no doubt that East-West have a Special Partnership > understanding. Do you think that it was made fully and freely available > to opponents? > > There was MI on this hand in my view. > Your assumption is that there was a partnership agreement to double grands. If this was the case then I've forgotten part of the thread. If not, then there was no misinformation with the possible exception of information about system in the other room. I do not think this was something the grand slam bidders were entitled to know. So if I've got it right that E-W did not have anagreement to double 7 contracts (suit contracts?) I disagree with DS's conclusion. -- Richard Lighton |"We won't wait long." (lighton@idt.net)|"No. We might change our minds. We'll get married first." Wood-Ridge NJ |"And change our minds afterwards?" USA |"That's the usual course." --W. S. Gilbert (Iolanthe) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 02:04:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 02:04:25 +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 CAA12207 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 02:04:18 +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 QAA08136 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:03:40 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 QAA06581 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:01:52 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990421180413.007d5e30@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:04:13 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: <199904211412.KAA06168@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:12 21/04/99 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> There is no doubt that East-West have a Special Partnership >> understanding. > >You consider that West's knowledge of what his teammates in the other >room will do is a _partnership_ understanding? > >I agree there is something unsavory about this case. West is making a >bridge decision based on information that an opponent would have liked >to know, but I find it hard to see that the laws require it to be >disclosed. > >Just how far are you prepared to go? Must West disclose his teammates >bidding methods? Their level of skill? Their tendencies in >competitive auctions? In principle, all this could be useful, but it's >hard to see a practical method for disclosure. > >Of course there is no doubt that NS in the other room must disclose >their special agreement -- "We never bid a grand slam." -- to their own >at-the-table opponents if there is a relevant auction. > I think we go very far here about full disclosure. West should disclose his partnership agreements, but what if it is not a partnership agreement (if East has not the same knowledge about the other pair's slam bidding)? My opinion is that, even if East was aware of the context, West's double was primarily a penalty double: He only thought the contract of 7Sx would be more profitable to his team than the contract of 7S. The reasons for his thinking so were related to strategy or high-level diplomacy but were extraneous and had not to be disclosed to the opponents, no more than many other strategic factors (dayly horoscope, premonitory dream, fearing ridicule, inferiority complex, rallying) that could have an effect on his bidding. I have some doubts about the reality of the 7-level prohibition for the other pair. Was it an advice, a vow, a strict prohibition? What was the prescribed punishment in case of an infraction to this rule? I think we should not assimilate this case to the ones in which players (erroneously) decline to disclose partnership understandings because the partner in possession of the information is not in a position to make use of it (for example: a 3rd position preempt which can be atypical). On another side there are partnership agreements which IMO should not need to be disclosed: I remember the old toy of the signalisation between declarer and dummy, when declarer peters from dummy at the first trick to advise his partner to relax about the outcome of the deal. 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 Apr 22 03:20:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:20:11 +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 DAA12527 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:20:02 +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 NAA03178 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:18:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990421132118.006e7954@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:21:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: <199904211555.LAA27144@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:55 AM 4/21/99 -0400, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes: > >> Your right to full disclosure includes the right to be informed of anything >> that may affect your opponents' bidding beyond their general bridge >> knowledge and experience. "Opponents" refers apecifically to your >> at-the-table opponents, but, OTOH, their teammates methods may be a factor >> in their bidding decisions, and certainly aren't general bridge knowledge >> or experience. > >How about a situation in which your opponents' teammates' methods may >influence your decisions, but not have a direct effect on your >opponents' decisions? I think that the test is whether their teammates' methods could affect your opponents' decisions, not whether it actually did (whatever that means). Of course, I also believe that you should have carte blanche to ask your opponents about their own agreements, i.e. that you are not restricted to asking only about bids actually made, which is subject to debate; I see this situation as similar. >For example, at board-a-match, you open a weak 1NT and are passed out, >missing a 4-4 spade fit which looks like it will gain an extra trick. >Are you entitled to know whether the player sitting in your seat at the >other table is playing a strong 1NT (in which case you must play >abnormally in order to try to make the same number of tricks that he >does)? I think you are entitled to know this if and only if your at-the-table opponents know it, not otherwise. >The defenders do have this information available; if their teammates are >playing strong NT, they know that the auction will be different at the >other table, and as soon as the 4-4 spade fit becomes evident, they can >play for -90 to win the board. This, of course, is the critical case. After all, if your opponents have "special knowledge" (not available to you, and not derived from general bridge knowledge and experience) that tells them that -90 will win the board, and can take advantage of this knowledge in choosing their plays, shouldn't you be entitled to know that +90 will lose the board, and take similar advantage in choosing your plays? FWIW, I also would argue that if you want this kind of information you must ask for it; I don't see it as being covered by the ACBL's alert procedure, or, as far as I understand them, anyone else's. 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 Apr 22 03:23:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:23:31 +1000 Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12549 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:23:19 +1000 Received: from pppikooijmainter (vp214-235.worldonline.nl [195.241.214.235]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA12141 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:23:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000301be8b69$f7f04c20$ebd6f1c3@pppikooijmainter.nl.net> From: "Ivo Kooijman" To: Subject: subscription Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 08:20:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01BE6ACE.D874E7E0" 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_001D_01BE6ACE.D874E7E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable subscribe bridge-laws ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BE6ACE.D874E7E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
subscribe = bridge-laws
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BE6ACE.D874E7E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 03:25:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:25:34 +1000 Received: from montezuma.emtex.com (root@montezuma.emtex.com [193.243.232.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12563 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:25:12 +1000 Received: from emtex.com (twalker.emtex.com [193.243.232.137]) by montezuma.emtex.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03591 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:29:43 GMT Message-ID: <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:26:13 +0100 From: Trevor Walker Organization: Emtex Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (OS/2; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I do not want to re-open the thread about whether you are allowed to know the opponents' bidding system at the other table. However, it seems in line with the principles of the law that you should know agreements that may influence your opponents at this table. If they know that their team-mates will not bid a grand, that is something that you are entitled to know. It seems to me that the intent of disclosure under the laws is that the opponents should be in posession of all the information that your side is (apart from 'general bridge knowledge') likely to use in selecting a bid. It might be a good idea if sponsoring organisations required each partnership in a teams match to furnish all (i.e. all 4) of their opponents with a convention card. Trevor Michael Farebrother wrote: > > >From: David Stevenson > > >Jan Kamras wrote: > > > >>I'm sure I'm missing something, but what conceivable infraction > might > >>that be? South's question to West, the answer to which is basically > none > >>of South's business? :-) > >>There seem to have been no UI, nor any MI. > > > >You are suggesting that South should say, before removing to 7NT:"By > >the way, your unalerted double does mean that you think the contract > >is not making, doesn't it?" > > > >LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS > > > >A. Special Partnership Agreements > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, > must > > be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law > 40).... > > > > > > > > There is no doubt that East-West have a Special Partnership > >understanding. Do you think that it was made fully and freely > available > >to opponents? > > > Oh, I think there is doubt that there is a SPU. *West* certainly > knows that their partners won't bid the GS, but I have never heard > anything that says the East knew, or if she did, whether it was a > partnership understanding (though I'd be willing to be convinced > otherwise, by information in the first case, and logic in the second). > > It is my belief that L75 only concerns information about the partners' > own bidding system. Let me change the example, hopefully slightly, in > order to show what I mean. > > Ian and I are hosting our OKB mentees at the Toronto Regional. We > decide to play in a KO game, and play mentor/novice pairs for the > first half. Down by 15, we decide to switch around for the second > half, and Ian and I are in against the grand in the example. Ian > doubles. I can work out that our novice partners are highly unlikely > to bid the GS (not "not allowed", mind you, but one of them has played > exactly one in her life, and the other I think doesn't have that much > experience), so a psychic double is similarly "risk-free". Ian > doubles (and he also can work this out). Should I delayed alert the > double of 7S ("Systematically Lightner, but our partners aren't going > to bid the GS, so could be psychic?" - remember we aren't allowed to > have any agreements about psychs in the ACBL. Ok, this is Toronto, > Belgium :-) or maybe "Just to let you know, there are the Standard > Two Chances that the GS will be bid at the other table" (slim and > none) and let them work it out for themselves?) > > And, in a related case, when the Director gets called afterward to > deal with the delayed alert (correcting back from 7NT to 7S), and I > lead my diamond, and the slam goes down on the ruff, because strangely > enough, he had a standard Lightner, now what? (thinking about this, I > can see a related thread coming in here. I know it's localish to the > ACBL right now, but what do we do when delayed alerts cause a > partnership to want to change their bidding decision?) > > And is there any Special Partnership Understanding, anywhere? - > remember we have never talked about this, and neither of us really > know what system our other pair plays. > > > There was MI on this hand in my view. > > I don't think so. The agreement was "Lightner". There was an > agreement, known at least by West, that their other pair at the table > was "not allowed" to bid the GS (whatever that means), but I don't > know if that makes any sort of, even implicit, partnership agreement > between the E and W at this table. As I said, I am willing to be > convinced. > > On a related thread (as it was brought in already), I think knowing > the system of the other pair (or at least knowing at least as much > about it as your opponents do) should be inside Full Disclosure, if it > isn't already. After all, is there a difference here between this > case and the case where West makes a risky defensive play against > 3NT-N because he knows that his teammates play a weak NT, 3NT is going > to be reached from the South side, and is cold from that side? If the > risky play fails, the most they can "lose" is the overtrick or three. > Oh, and my partner can work this out, too. Are you going to complain > that there is MI or a CPU here? > > Michael. > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 03:35:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:35:05 +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 DAA12624 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:34:57 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA29284 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002701be8c1d$419b7580$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com><00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:31:05 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote; > At 11:25 PM 4/20/99 +0100, David wrote: > > > I am not sure whether this is relevant to the hand in question. > >However, it seems a reasonable view. I believe it is a matter for > >regulation though, not Law: L40B, L40D and L75A make it clear that this > >is an open game but leave the methods of disclosure to the SOs. > > > > I am not sure that anyone has that right without such a regulation, > >though. In other words, I tend to agree with Marvin that players > >*should* have a general right to know the methods in the other room but > >I do not believe they have such a right now. > > Your right to full disclosure includes the right to be informed of anything > that may affect your opponents' bidding beyond their general bridge > knowledge and experience. "Opponents" refers apecifically to your > at-the-table opponents, but, OTOH, their teammates methods may be a factor > in their bidding decisions, and certainly aren't general bridge knowledge > or experience. > > I therefore interpret the law as giving you the right to know as much about > your at-the-table opponents' teammates' methods as they themselves do, but > no more. You may ask questions (and the opponents must be forthcoming), > but may not, for example, request a copy of their teammates' CC. > Do you put a blank CC in front of them, and ask them to enter their teammates' methods to the best of their knowledge, and then ask if there is any other information they can provide? That seems like a cumbersome procedure. One opponent may have all the answers, and the other none. Are the answers UI to the latter? My prefererence would be to have a glance at my opposite number's CC before the match starts. Sometimes I do that, and no one seems to mind. Evidently they could successfully refuse my request, but that doesn't seem right. On the other hand, I can't imagine myself going down the line before starting a pair game, asking to see every CC, or being permitted to do so. Is the principle the same? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 04:11:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:11:14 +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 EAA12789 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:11:07 +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 NAA27517 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:11:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0IHT301E Wed, 21 Apr 99 13:09:54 Message-ID: <9904211309.0IHT301@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 99 13:09:54 Subject: FULL DISC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For instance, the ACBL has a rule that non early round calls after 3N are not alerted during the auction. Therefore, the other side would have to make an inquiry about the double to find out the understanding in time to take it into account when bidding. If there is no inquiry in time, there is no MI in ACBL land. Roger Pewick B>At 11:30 PM 4/20/99 +0100, David wrote: B>>Jan Kamras wrote: B>> B>>>I'm sure I'm missing something, but what conceivable infraction might B>>>that be? South's question to West, the answer to which is basically B>none >>of South's business? :-) B>>>There seem to have been no UI, nor any MI. B>> B>> The double was neither alerted nor pre-alerted. Would you not say B>>that the principles of Full disclosure mean that the pair have no B>>Special Partnership Understanding in the absence of an alert? B>> B>>>If South was interested in any potential special meaning of the double B>>>he should have asked East b4 removing to 7NT. In any case, it seems B>West >>pulled off a successful psyche, getting NS out of a making and B>into a >>failing slam. Well done! B>> B>> You are suggesting that South should say, before removing to 7NT: "By B>>the way, your unalerted double does mean that you think the contract is B>>not making, doesn't it?" B>> B>>LAW 75 - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS B>> B>>A. Special Partnership Agreements B>> Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must B>> be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40).... B>> B>> There is no doubt that East-West have a Special Partnership B>>understanding. Do you think that it was made fully and freely B>available >to opponents? B>> B>> There was MI on this hand in my view. B>How is this different from, say, late in a matchpoint event when you are B>behind and know that you need tops, averages won't do? In this B>position, you will double a grand slam with only the vaguest hope of B>beating it; your double by no means says that you think they won't make B>it. Or should that position be alerted as well? B>Eric Landau elandau@cais.com B>APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org B>1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 B>Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 04:11:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:11:07 +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 EAA12781 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:10:58 +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 NAA27498 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:10:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0IHR401D Wed, 21 Apr 99 13:09:50 Message-ID: <9904211309.0IHR401@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 99 13:09:50 Subject: FULL DISC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think it makes the game extremely elegant to have players try to maximize their scores by making use of what they believe the players at the other table are doing. It seems to be the highest level of the game. However, there are numerous issues concerning players to disclose agreements that are not their own: 1. If partner is aware of such questions while a hand is in play, this UI is extremely revealing and is likely to result in the side being put to difficult tests wrt LAs. 2. Can a teammate be expected to know what the agreements at the other table are? What if they changed methods just before sitting down? What about claims of damage due to MI? This has the makings of deciding the contest in the courtroom. All in all, I believe it is best to get information about agreements from the horse's mouth and only from the horse's mouth. I do not think that the laws should create a duty to inform the opponents during a session of what they believe their teammates agreements are. I think it is all well and good that they be permitted, within the time restrictions, but not to interfere with the opponents own private communications, to ascertain the opponent's agreements at the other table. Further, they do so at their own risk. It does seem that such a situation is workable when the CoC require that agreements be submitted to the sponsor before the contest so that players can prepare for their opponents. Or, how about asking before the session? If contestants felt the need for having cordial relations with all the other players, could this be a boost to the game? Roger Pewick B>At 11:25 PM 4/20/99 +0100, David wrote: B>> I am not sure whether this is relevant to the hand in question. B>>However, it seems a reasonable view. I believe it is a matter for B>>regulation though, not Law: L40B, L40D and L75A make it clear that this B>>is an open game but leave the methods of disclosure to the SOs. B>> B>> I am not sure that anyone has that right without such a regulation, B>>though. In other words, I tend to agree with Marvin that players B>>*should* have a general right to know the methods in the other room but B>>I do not believe they have such a right now. B>Your right to full disclosure includes the right to be informed of B>anything that may affect your opponents' bidding beyond their general B>bridge knowledge and experience. "Opponents" refers apecifically to B>your at-the-table opponents, but, OTOH, their teammates methods may be a B>factor in their bidding decisions, and certainly aren't general bridge B>knowledge or experience. B>I therefore interpret the law as giving you the right to know as much B>about your at-the-table opponents' teammates' methods as they themselves B>do, but no more. You may ask questions (and the opponents must be B>forthcoming), but may not, for example, request a copy of their B>teammates' CC. B>Eric Landau elandau@cais.com B>APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org B>1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 B>Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 04:22:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:22:53 +1000 Received: from Tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12860 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:22:48 +1000 From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by Tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id LAA00176; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA13625; 21 Apr 99 11:18:22 -0700 Date: 21 Apr 99 11:14:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199904211118.AA13625@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: C-BLML: A diminishment Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I regret to announce that C-BLML has lost one of its senior lurkers, Panda (aka "Disk Drive", aka "PupQat"), to massive liver failure at the age of 16+. Feel free to use his name in unneeded justification when you give your cat(s) an (un)expected treat tonight. Regards, WWFiv (Wally Farley) {Los Gatos, CA -- ACBL District 21} wwfiv@ix.netcom.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 04:25:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:25:12 +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 EAA12878 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:25:05 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h116.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id WAA13197; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:24:55 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <371EA579.4CE1@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:28:41 -0700 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: Full disclosure References: <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com><00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> <002701be8c1d$419b7580$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="MY_1.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="MY_1.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Thank you, Janek, for nice case. There are formed two camps: 1 - players may need information about bidding methods at the second room but the current Laws do not give them such rights 2 - players have no rights to receive information about bidding methods at the second room because the Laws do not give them such rights It is interesting that the first camp united persons who had never had the same position before:))) First of all I'd like to underline that I have a lot of sympathy to the position of the first camp. But my position is rather sharper... For me - it is not psyche, it is not well done, it is not fair at all. SOs of all the greatest team tournaments give to all the contestants rights to get to know bidding methods of all the opponents - in advance, from the very beginning of the tournament. That means that (at least at high level tournaments) everybody understands players' need to be informed about potential game progress so at the one as at the second room - for preparation to that match and for choosing their own final decision during the match. But nevertheless - it is common practice that before the match every team with extraordinary methods warns opponents. Moreover, it happened to me a lot of times during matches so to ask opponents additional questions about their partners methods and style as to be asked - usually after the board, for estimate the result of the board. I think that agreements at the second room are AI for both pairs at the first room: one pair is naturally familiar with their mates' system, second pair should be informed from the "equal rights, equal start" point of view (obligatory principle at every kind of sport). IMO that such unusual agreement (as in Jan's case) should be remind to opponents before match - and obligatory these opponents should be informed if bidding methods were not exchanged in advance. And I see two reasons for such demands: 1. This unusual agreement at one room affects onto the bidding at the second room, in fact - it becomes part of the agreement of the second pair. I guess that in reality their agreement about Double over Grand is: "penalty (or Lightner) or ANY HAND for opponent's mistake (in bidding or in later card-play"; so - L75A may be applied: "L75A. Special Partnership Agreements Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40)". 2. I'd like to remind my position about interpretation of the word "opponent": "Opponent - A player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed". I try to interpret it that there are RHO, LHO and some other opponents - I mean second part of this definition: "a member of the partnership to which one is opposed". A lot of thanks to Grattan who sent me Collins Gem "Dictionary and Thesaurus", among other there are meanings: "oppose - combat, fight, resist". It seems to me that during the match a pair NS at the first room opposes to pair NS at the second room: they fight (combat) for best result in each board. That's why our game is named as "Duplicate Contract Bridge" And that's why (IMO) the L75 is applied to both pairs of opponent's team. Then - there is no need to change the Laws, this case is resolved under the current Laws: my answer for Jan's question "Ladies and gentlemen, your opinion please: was there violation of Laws in this case?" is "It is with sure violation of the L75 either because of the 1-st reason or because of 2-nd (which I personally prefer)". Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 04:30:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:30:57 +1000 Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12928 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:30:50 +1000 Received: from pppikooijmainter (vp239-163.worldonline.nl [195.241.239.163]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA11320 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:30:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003501be8b73$66707ae0$ebd6f1c3@pppikooijmainter.nl.net> From: "ton kooijman" To: Subject: subscription Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:18:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0032_01BE8B84.29AE8640" 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_0032_01BE8B84.29AE8640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable subscribe bridge-laws ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01BE8B84.29AE8640 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
subscribe = bridge-laws
------=_NextPart_000_0032_01BE8B84.29AE8640-- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 04:33:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:33:52 +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 EAA12952 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 04:33:45 +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 OAA02201 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:33:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904211833.OAA03109@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9904211309.0IHT301@bbs.hal-pc.org> (r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org) Subject: Re: FULL DISC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick writes: > For instance, the ACBL has a rule that non early round calls after 3N are > not alerted during the auction. Therefore, the other side would have to > make an inquiry about the double to find out the understanding in time to > take it into account when bidding. If there is no inquiry in time, there is > no MI in ACBL land. While the principle here is important, alertable *doubles* must be alerted during the auction regardless of level; it's only alertable *bids* which are delayed until the end of the auction. For example: N E S W 1D P 1S P 4C If you have special agreements on the double of a splinter, you need to ask to confirm that the bid is a splinter before making that double. (For example, some people play that double of a 4C splinter here would ask for a diamond lead, while double of a Gerber 4C would ask for a club lead.) -- 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 Apr 22 06:26:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 06:26:22 +1000 Received: from datatone.com (root@mail.datatone.com [208.220.192.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA13215 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 06:26:16 +1000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (dial74.ppp.datatone.com [208.220.195.74]) by datatone.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA22663; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:25:46 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:24:51 -0400 To: "Grattan" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Cc: "David Stevenson" , Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 4:22 AM -0400 4/21/99, Grattan wrote: >As for laws being "objective" I do not think >the word you want is really "objective", it seems to me you are >thinking in terms of laws being "mechanical", producing >automatic resolutions of situations? I did not mean "mechanical". I intended the term "Objective" to mean, roughly, "the result of human reason applying the Laws to the facts of the case." I contrast this to a "Subjective" ruling, where the director or the committee rule as they feel best, perhaps in an attempt to achieve what they consider to be "equity". Judgement is certainly required to apply Law 12C2. One could not determine "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" mechanically. >Such laws are based upon >the principle that if they operate automatically and with >indifference to circumstances they will distribute justice and >injustice impartially and thus 'fairly'. Personally I do not think >that is what the game is about or should be about. I am attempting to argue in favor of justice and against injustice. Call me an idealist... I do believe impartially in enforcement should be one of the Law's goals, perhaps a primary one. Does anyone think otherwise? > The problem you have,and one that I certainly >recognize, is, I suggest, that ACs find it difficult to be objective. >The quality of committee members is compromised if they are >too 'involved' - by which I do not mean in the tournament >concerned but that they have strong opinions which intrude >into their judgment of particular cases. We all have opinions; >our usefulness as committee members is enhanced by the >degree to which we can stand aside from our own opinions >and grasp the minds and methods of the players in front of >the committee. Committees must enforce the laws. A poor set of laws will make it difficult or impossible for a committee to be objective. I believe 12C3 is a poor law. > In those areas where the law works ill if it tries to be >purely mechanical I believe the principles in the laws should be >expressed in terms that are as objective as possible, but I think >objectivity is achieved when the committee has that quality >inherent in its members. Perhaps for shortage of suitable people, >it does appear that the make-up of committees is often flawed >in this key aspect. It has seemed to me over the years that it >has often been a question of whether the committee chairman >has the understanding of this and the strength to lead his >committee along that path. +++++ An excellent committee may be able to render an objective ruling even when the laws make it difficult. I believe the laws should make it practical for a less than perfect committee to render an objective ruling. - Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 07:05:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:05:13 +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 HAA13334 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:05:06 +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 RAA17982 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990421170619.006ed240@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:06:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: <002701be8c1d$419b7580$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:31 AM 4/21/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Do you put a blank CC in front of them, and ask them to enter their >teammates' methods to the best of their knowledge, and then ask if there >is any other information they can provide? That seems like a cumbersome >procedure. How would that be different from quizzing them in detail about their own methods, asking that every agreement and inference be explained, before the round starts? I admit that I can't cite the law that forbids this, but I don't believe that it should be, or, in practice, is, tolerated. Whatever (if you believe there is such a thing) forbids this, a far more cumbersome procedure, would forbid Marvin's suggested procedure as well. Asking such questions, when you can't possibly know (yet) that you might have any need or use for the information thus gained, is simply badgering. >One opponent may have all the answers, and the other none. Are the >answers UI to the latter? It certainly could be, although I'd think it would be rare for such an answer to suggest a particular call or play. >My prefererence would be to have a glance at my opposite number's CC >before the match starts. Sometimes I do that, and no one seems to mind. >Evidently they could successfully refuse my request, but that doesn't >seem right. Why not? If your (at-the-table) opponents don't have the information you want, and thus can't be affected by it, you shouldn't be entitled to demand it, whether it's about their own agreements or their teammates'. >On the other hand, I can't imagine myself going down the line before >starting a pair game, asking to see every CC, or being permitted to do >so. Is the principle the same? I don't think so. Your opponents' knowledge of their teammates' methods is "special information" in the sense that they are more likely to know it than you are, whereas knowledge of what the pairs in the opposite field are playing in a pair game is just as available to you as it is to them, and thus would fall under "general bridge experience". 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 Apr 22 09:00:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:00:18 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13580 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:00:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA05927 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA06758 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:59:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:59:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904212259.SAA06758@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L80E X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > the most far reaching finding was that the > provisions of Law 80F apply to regulations made under Law 80F > and not to regulations made using powers granted in other > sections of the laws - here 80E. Oh, ho, ho! This is a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. I've often played in individual contests where the Conditions of Contest provide that you may look at your own or partner's convention card. This violates the L40E2 footnote, but nobody seems to mind. Now it seems this rule was legal all the time under L80E. How nice. I wonder what would happen if an SO decided to declare all its contests "special" and ignore any laws it finds inconvenient. (I just hope no one from M*mph*s is reading this.) Yes, David, I know, I know... an SO should be able to do anything it considers beneficial. I'm sure things over here will improve some day, but I only have so long to live. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 09:03:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:03:46 +1000 Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com (smtp5.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13599 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:03:40 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehp3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.35]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA29329 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:03:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990421190129.006f4e34@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:01:29 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> References: <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:30 AM 4/21/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 11:25 PM 4/20/99 +0100, David wrote: > >> I am not sure whether this is relevant to the hand in question. >>However, it seems a reasonable view. I believe it is a matter for >>regulation though, not Law: L40B, L40D and L75A make it clear that this >>is an open game but leave the methods of disclosure to the SOs. >> >> I am not sure that anyone has that right without such a regulation, >>though. In other words, I tend to agree with Marvin that players >>*should* have a general right to know the methods in the other room but >>I do not believe they have such a right now. > >Your right to full disclosure includes the right to be informed of anything >that may affect your opponents' bidding beyond their general bridge >knowledge and experience. "Opponents" refers apecifically to your >at-the-table opponents, but, OTOH, their teammates methods may be a factor >in their bidding decisions, and certainly aren't general bridge knowledge >or experience. People seem comfortable tossing around the phrase "full disclosure" as though it were a bona fide legal principle. I've looked, but I can't find this principle in the Laws. The relevant and controlling legal text seems to derive from L40B and L75A and B. These establish the opponents' rights to information about partnership agreements, whether explicitly established or developed through partnership experience. This is a much narrower right than what Eric has posited: "to be informed of anything that may affect your opponents' bidding beyond general bridge knowledge and experience." In practice, such a broad right is both unnecessary and unenforceable. The information I might conceivably consider at the table, beyond any partnership agreement, is boundless. Among many other things it includes my assessment of our competitive position, my assessment of my opponents, mine and my partner's apparent state of mind, and, in a team game, my evaluation of all these factors with respect to the action at the other table. No law compels me to share any of these judgements with the opponents, even when they may be key factors in particular bridge judgements. Do the Laws (as distinct from SO regulation) grant the opponents the right to know what my teammates' methods are? Nope. Should they? It's a little tricky. Perhaps an SO should provide for a procedure by which a brief summary of methods and approach could be provided, although the level of specificity which should be available is, I would imagine, considerably lower than that provided for the at-the-table opponents. >I therefore interpret the law as giving you the right to know as much about >your at-the-table opponents' teammates' methods as they themselves do, but >no more. You may ask questions (and the opponents must be forthcoming), >but may not, for example, request a copy of their teammates' CC. > And if the opponents are not forthcoming? How can this principle be enforced against players who plead ignorance of their teammates' methods? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 09:12:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:12:20 +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 JAA13626 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:12:12 +1000 Received: from modem5.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.5] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10a69v-00052h-00; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:11:59 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Grattan Endicott" , , "blml" Subject: Re: RESHUFFLE - and talking to myself again...... Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:33:36 +0100 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: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Secretary, WBF Laws Committee ................................................................ "Chance favours the prepared mind" (Pasteur) ================================ ---------- > From: Grattan Endicott > To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org; blml > Subject: Re: RESHUFFLE > Date: 21 April 1999 13:02 > > > Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Could everything be done twice, everything > would be done better. - proverb. > ..................................................................... > > -----Original Message----- > From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > To: blml > Date: 21 April 1999 00:42 > Subject: RESHUFFLE > > > > > >The 1990 case seems a bit hazy. > > ...... \x/ .............. > >Roger Pewick > > > >B>From: "Kooijman, A." > > > > > >B>Nothing new under the sun( wasn't it Shakespeare saying something like > >B>that, Grattan will for sure solve this). In Geneva 1990 our grandmaster > >B>himself, Edgar Kaplan had a similar experience being 'partner' of an > >B>unnoticed 1 club opening. The TD decided what the AC did here and Edgar > >B>appealed to the Rules and Regulations Committee, of which Grattan was a > >B>member if I remember well. > > > >B>The R&RC upheld the TD-decision. So, if we do not need to invent new > >B>soluitions again and again, there it is. > > > > ................ \x/ ................. > > ------------------------- \x/ ----------------- > Edgar also had a somewhat obscure argument that Law > 21A had no relevance; as I recall I went to the front of the book > for evidence of the direction in which a Director was pointed > in the circumstances. Something in the definitions, I think, which > may have mysteriously vanished from today's code - I must check > on that when I get home today. #### Not quite right. It was the back of the book. Edgar wished to argue that since he had received no information he had not misunderstood anything. I countered that he had misunderstood the auction and that the index referred the Director to Law 21 when there was *any* 'Misunderstanding not based on misinformation'. Ah well, the index may have altered but 21A has not. ~ Grattan ~ #### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 09:12:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:12:21 +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 JAA13627 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:12:13 +1000 Received: from modem5.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.5] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10a69x-00052h-00; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:12:02 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:10:11 +0100 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 .................................................................. "Chance favours the prepared mind" (Pasteur) ================================ ---------- > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Full disclosure > Date: 21 April 1999 16:55 > > Eric Landau writes: > > > Your right to full disclosure includes the right to be informed of anything > > that may affect your opponents' bidding beyond their general bridge > > knowledge and experience. "Opponents" refers apecifically to your > > at-the-table opponents, but, OTOH, their teammates methods may be a factor > > in their bidding decisions, and certainly aren't general bridge knowledge > > or experience. > ++++ So far as the Laws are concerned it is quite clear that "opponent(s)" in Law 20 and Law 75C, for example, comprise only the side (partnership) opposing you at the table. See the definition of 'opponent'. What you are allowed to ask about is the meaning of their auction, and in answering they are required to disclose *all special information conveyed*. There is nothing about any 'factor in their bidding decisions' unless it constitutes information conveyed. You are allowed to know what I am telling my partner and whether there is any special partnership understanding affecting the call or play. I have my doubts that any knowledge concerning team-mates' bidding methods could affect the *meanings* of my calls, as distinct from my tactics which I am not required to disclose. What did you have in mind? As to whether regulation could provide for a pair to have information about methods in use by opponents' team mates it is an unresolved point. For example, I wonder whether a regulation under Law 40E might extend the use of opponents' convention card to the opposing team pair in the other room. I think perhaps it could. But there is no right in the laws to consult it in the absence of such a regulation; Law 40E2 only refers to 'opponent's convention card' (which does not include their team mates' card) so that technically at least, in accordance with the established principle of the Law (see Lille), to consult it would be to use extraneous information. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 09:32:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:32:03 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13674 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:31:53 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA09193 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA06839 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:31:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:31:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904212331.TAA06839@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Either we rule the card as major/minor based on the players' intent, > or we don't. > > I cannot believe that whether we know the intent by accident has > anything to do with it. Please point me to a Law justifying that. Well, I see your point, but I don't like it. L58B2 tells us the player designates which card to play, and the other becomes a penalty card. So we go to L50B to decide whether the penalty card is major or minor. L50B calls for a determination of fact as to whether the card exposed but not played was exposed inadvertently or intentionally. So if you _know_ it was exposed intentionally, because the player has blurted it out or because of the particular manner in which the two cards were played or some other reason, I don't see any way it can be anything but major. I trust we all agree so far. What if you don't know? Should you find out? Normally when a law gives two different options depending on the facts, it is right to find out which facts apply. I think this law is an exception, because it gives the specific example of two cards being played simultaneously. It seems to me that it is saying we _assume_ inadvertence unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. But one could certainly read it as saying that one should investigate in the usual manner and rule based on the outcome. I don't like this reading at all, but it's there if one insists. (I am tempted to write "if one is perverse.") Perhaps Grattan should make a note for 2007. Whichever way the law is intended, I'm sure there is a clearer way of putting it. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 09:38:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:38:40 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA13724 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:38:30 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA09274 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA06855 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:38:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:38:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904212338.TAA06855@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > As to whether regulation could provide for a pair to > have information about methods in use by opponents' team > mates it is an unresolved point. For example, I wonder > whether a regulation under Law 40E might extend the use > of opponents' convention card to the opposing team pair > in the other room. I think perhaps it could. I'm really surprised that you express doubt. "Regulations for its use" (referring to a convention card) seems pretty broad, indeed almost unlimited. If a regulation says "Make four copies of your CC, and put two on your own table, and two more on the other table of the match," why should that be impermissible? (The quote is not suitable for an actual regulation, but I trust the intent is clear.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 09:55:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:55:30 +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 JAA13778 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:55:19 +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 10a6pi-000ClD-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:55:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:34:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > There was MI on this hand in my view. >I don't think so. The agreement was "Lightner". There was an >agreement, known at least by West, that their other pair at the table >was "not allowed" to bid the GS (whatever that means), but I don't >know if that makes any sort of, even implicit, partnership agreement >between the E and W at this table. As I said, I am willing to be >convinced. When we discuss matters on BLML we never have sufficient information. There isn't time to put *absolutely* *everything* in to a post, and we make assumptions. It may be true that some of the assumptions and premises behind our argument are false, but it rarely brings much interest to a discussion. Yes, *of course*, *IF* only West knows his team-mates are not allowed to bid a grand and there has never been a case with the same team-mates of bidding a psychic grand and he has never discussed with his partner and his partner does not know their team-mates' peculiarities *THEN* there is no MI because there is no SPU. That is quite obvious, and really does not add anything to the argument. If, as I assumed, they both know their team-mates [quite a reasonable assumption, I think] and their team-mates are not allowed to bid a grand then there is an implicit understanding even without discussion. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 09:55:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:55:31 +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 JAA13783 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:55:25 +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 10a6pi-00079O-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:55:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:25:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990421084203.006ede44@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990421084203.006ede44@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >How is this different from, say, late in a matchpoint event when you are >behind and know that you need tops, averages won't do? In this position, >you will double a grand slam with only the vaguest hope of beating it; your >double by no means says that you think they won't make it. Or should that >position be alerted as well? Pre-alerted, anyway. I do not think that you should do something that your partner understands because he has information not available to oppos. Saying at the start of the round "We are desperate for tops" would be adequate. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 10:40:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:40:07 +1000 Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA13865 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:40:04 +1000 Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn17p10.ozemail.com.au [203.108.26.74]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA03301; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:39:57 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:39:57 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199904220039.KAA03301@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: ardelm@ozemail.com.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Full disclosure Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Saying at the start of the round "We are desperate for tops" >would be adequate. This is is fact what I say to all my opponents Tony From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 10:40:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:40:37 +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 KAA13874 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:40:27 +1000 Received: from modem55.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.55] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10a7XM-0006Q6-00; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:40:17 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:30:51 +0100 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 ................................................................ "Chance favours the prepared mind" (Pasteur) =============================== ---------- > From: Adam Wildavsky > To: Grattan > Cc: David Stevenson ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Split/Weighted > Date: 21 April 1999 21:24 > > At 4:22 AM -0400 4/21/99, Grattan wrote: > >As for laws being "objective" I do not think > >the word you want is really "objective", .................... \x/ .................... > I did not mean "mechanical". I intended the term "Objective" to mean, > roughly, "the result of human reason applying the Laws to the facts of the > case." I contrast this to a "Subjective" ruling, where the director or the > committee rule as they feel best, perhaps in an attempt to achieve what > they consider to be "equity". > ++++ Yes, well it is obvious we have a language difficulty that is making it difficult for us to exchange ideas. My dictionary tells me that 'objectivity' is "the ability to present or view facts uncoloured by feelings, opinions, or personal bias". Now I do not see this characteristic as something which a law can possess; the text can only provide the basis for a judgment to be made - it is the person who brings objectivity to that judgment. Objectivity is a characteristic of the person(s). That the approach of a Director or an AC to the application of any Law should be objective has always been the intention of the WBFLC. As nearly as can be achieved we desire that the operation of the laws should be dispassionate and unbiased, and in relation to 12C3 that "equity" should not be a matter of feeling but of a sober and detached judgment of the balance between the two sides absent any irregularity. Now it may be that this idealistic aim will always be thwarted by the imperfections of the judges, but this is a poor argument against the law. Indeed your phobic reaction to 12C3 is a response to its misuse by people, not to any inadequacy of the Law - if it were this your arguments would be more philosophical. Viewed objectively 12C3 is seen to be set in unexceptionable terms. In importing 12C3 the WBFLC acknowledged that 12C2 acts unfairly at times, that there is sometimes a better answer. In providing scope for a better answer when appropriate the Committee should not be held responsible for the standards of implementation. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 11:30:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:30:53 +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 LAA14036 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:30:47 +1000 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id LAA17385; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:28:40 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma017278; Thu, 22 Apr 99 11:28:15 +1000 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 LAA24552 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:28:14 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02592; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:30:55 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990422105909.009766b0@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:26:40 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990421084203.006ede44@pop.cais.com> <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> <371B8BB3.26390B60@home.com> <3.0.1.32.19990421084203.006ede44@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This has been an intriguing discussion....I understand all the rationale for wanting to know what is happening at the other table. [e.g. BAM example] but still am not convinced that this would open a can-of-worms in practical terms that is not a good idea. Some problems that instantly spring to mind : 1) some pairs know their teammates methods well, others not at all - this would tend to make it very difficult to evaluate full disclosure (perhaps Steve Willner's idea of making available the CC at both tables in a teams match would be OK - I wish I could get my opponents to have CCs at my table let alone teammates) 2) how much general 'style' information vs. system information is appropriate. I believe it is appropriate to ask opponents about pre-empting style when they open - how does one ascertain the action at the other table 3) would there be redress if you got your teammates methods wrong? (suppose you discuss at the lunch-break in a teams event some boards - and teammates say "I opened a weak NT and then..." so you assume they play a weak NT. You inform this to your opponents in the afternoon but it transpires they play variable NT. Eric Landau wrote: >How is this different from, say, late in a matchpoint event when you are >behind and know that you need tops, averages won't do? In this position, >you will double a grand slam with only the vaguest hope of beating it; your >double by no means says that you think they won't make it. Or should that >position be alerted as well? and then David Stevenson wrote: > Pre-alerted, anyway. I do not think that you should do something that >your partner understands because he has information not available to >oppos. Saying at the start of the round "We are desperate for tops" >would be adequate. In general I agree with this. If my partner is sleepy so I bid a hand simply rather than in a more round about fashion then I feel the opponents should be given this information so as not to mislead them. But what about the situation where you play the last round of the pairs event and you are the only 2 pairs likely to be in contention (a multi-session event). Both pairs want to know how the other pair is going to determine their strategy. Who goes first? Peter http://nswba.com.au - NSW Bridge Assocation -- Peter Newman Fujitsu Australia Limited +61-2-9452-9111 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 12:34:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:34:08 +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 MAA14220 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:34:02 +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 VAA11961 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:33:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0U1UX00S Wed, 21 Apr 99 21:23:30 Message-ID: <9904212123.0U1UX00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 99 21:23:30 Subject: FULL DISC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you David. rp B>From: David Grabiner B>r.pewick writes: B>> For instance, the ACBL has a rule that non early round calls after 3N B>are > not alerted during the auction. Therefore, the other side would B>have to > make an inquiry about the double to find out the B>understanding in time to > take it into account when bidding. If there B>is no inquiry in time, there is > no MI in ACBL land. B>While the principle here is important, alertable *doubles* must be B>alerted during the auction regardless of level; it's only alertable B>*bids* which are delayed until the end of the auction. B>For example: B>N E S W B>1D P 1S P B>4C B>If you have special agreements on the double of a splinter, you need to B>ask to confirm that the bid is a splinter before making that double. B>(For example, some people play that double of a 4C splinter here would B>ask for a diamond lead, while double of a Gerber 4C would ask for a club B>lead.) B>-- B>David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu B>http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner B>Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! B>Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 14:09:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:09:52 +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 OAA14427 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:09:48 +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 OAA05147 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:09:47 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990422141027.009c2290@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:10:27 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Grattan on holiday Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following bounced to me due to malformed headers from Grattan. Before he gets accused of ignoring anybody ... :-) >From: "Grattan" >Subject: Holiday. >Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:39:19 +0100 > >Grattan > Secretary, WBF Laws Committee >................................................................. >"Chance favours the prepared mind" > (Pasteur) >================================ > >++++ This is where Hermes, too, settles down for a period >of repose and reflection. We leave for Kojakland in a few >hours time, and unless we surface from there - not very likely >with company to keep - it will be May 8th when we are next to >be heard.++++ > >Explanatory note for family recipients - 'Kojakland' is Florida. > > 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 Thu Apr 22 23:25:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:25:41 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15868 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:25:31 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10aJTk-0008Iz-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:25:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:04:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: List of important beings MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Meeoouuwwww !!!!! I regret to tell you that Nanki Poo has lost the last list of cats who attend BLML. He blames our can-opener, David, and the frequent crashes on his machine. I am not impressed. If one of *my* friends out there could send *ME* a copy of the most recent list [to Quango ] I will send you a virtual fish as a reward. Purrs and headbutts *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 23:25:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:25:45 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15866 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:25:28 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10aJTk-0008Ix-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:25:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:22:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> <199904211555.LAA27144@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990421132118.006e7954@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990421132118.006e7954@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >Of course, I also believe that you should have carte blanche to ask your >opponents about their own agreements, i.e. that you are not restricted to >asking only about bids actually made, which is subject to debate; Debate? L20F1: "... (questions may be asked about calls actually made, or about relevant calls available but not made) ..." I grant you that Grattan says this does not allow you to ask about calls made, which I do not agree with: but no-one has suggested it does not allow you to ask about calls not made. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 22 23:25:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:25:52 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15867 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:25:31 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10aJTk-0008It-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:25:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:33:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com> <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> In-Reply-To: <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Trevor Walker wrote: >It might be a good idea if sponsoring organisations required each >partnership in a teams match to furnish all (i.e. all 4) of their >opponents with a convention card. Hi Trevor, nice to see you. It is interesting how practical this rule would be. My guess is that it would be ignored in anything short of an international match. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 00:05:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:05:57 +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 AAA16035 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:05:51 +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 JAA10314 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:05:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0CSO100M Thu, 22 Apr 99 09:06:31 Message-ID: <9904220906.0CSO100@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 99 09:06:31 Subject: FULL DISC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My curiosity aroused, I went to my alert policy file and this is what I found: Part X: Delayed (or Post) Alerts A delayed Alert is used for Conventional calls above the level of 3NT, starting with openers rebid. Once the auction has progressed to the point that opener has had the opportunity to make a rebid, no conventional calls at the four level or higher should be Alerted until the auction is over. The declaring side must make their delayed Alerts before the opening lead. Defenders wait until they have made the opening lead before they explain calls requiring a delayed Alert. As with normal Alerts, the partner of the person making the Alertable call is the person who makes the delayed Alert and explains the agreement. EXAMPLE: 1H Pass 1S Pass 4D (splinter) There is no Alert at the time for the 4D bid. After the auction, the 1H bidder must Alert and explain, as required, the meaning of the call. EXAMPLE: 1C Pass 1H Pass 2H Pass [4C,4D,4S] If there was a conventional meaning attached to any of these calls -- ace asking, splinter or something else -- the Alert would take place after the auction. Apparently, it is all calls [as opposed to only bids] that are not alerted. Roger Pewick B>Thank you David. B>rp B>B>From: David Grabiner B>B>r.pewick writes: B>B>> For instance, the ACBL has a rule that non early round calls after B>3N . > not alerted during the auction. Therefore, the other side would B>. > make an inquiry about the double to find out the B>B>understanding in time to > take it into account when bidding. If B>there B>is no inquiry in time, there is > no MI in ACBL land. B>B>While the principle here is important, alertable *doubles* must be B>B>alerted during the auction regardless of level; it's only alertable B>B>*bids* which are delayed until the end of the auction. B>B>For example: B>B>N E S W B>B>1D P 1S P B>B>4C B>B>If you have special agreements on the double of a splinter, you need B>to B>ask to confirm that the bid is a splinter before making that B>double. B>B>(For example, some people play that double of a 4C splinter here would B>B>ask for a diamond lead, while double of a Gerber 4C would ask for a B>club B>lead.) B>B>-- B>B>David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu B>B>http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner B>B>Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! B>B>Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. B>B> B>Roger Pewick B>Houston, Tx B>___ B>*SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader B> Rog From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 01:39:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:39:47 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA18522 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:39:39 +1000 Received: from [130.15.119.197] (DU197.N119.QueensU.CA [130.15.119.197]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17265 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990421190129.006f4e34@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990421083028.006e2df0@pop.cais.com> <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00b501be8ab5$084e1080$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:39:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Full disclosure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some years ago, I submitted this question to the Bridge World: suppose you defeat a normal game contract with normal defence, and you realize that your teammates' unusual system should lead to the same contract being played from the other side, from which it is cold. You know that you have a likely game swing in your pocket, which may affect your decisions on later deals. Are your opponents entitled to this information? More generally, what are your at the table opponents entitled to know about your teammates' system? The Bridge World answered in an editorial, saying in effect that these questions were not covered in the current laws, but that in the BW's opinion (this is all from memory, but I think I have the gist correct): 1. You are not required to inform the opponents voluntarily. 2. If they ask, and you know, you must tell them. 3. You are not required to know anything about your teammates' system. _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 01:47:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:47:02 +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 BAA18570 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:46:52 +1000 Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt032n07.maine.rr.com [204.210.86.7]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA21038 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990422114633.00846e60@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:46:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: References: <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> <19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com> <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Trevor Walker wrote: > >>It might be a good idea if sponsoring organisations required each >>partnership in a teams match to furnish all (i.e. all 4) of their >>opponents with a convention card. I can just see it now: "Partner, I see our opponents at the other table are playing weak NTs, let's switch to weak NTs to minimize the system differences." Now, the opponents will, of course, want to switch to strong NTs to foil the opponents' strategy. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 01:49:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:49:05 +1000 Received: from educ.queensu.ca (educ.QueensU.CA [130.15.118.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA18593 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:48:53 +1000 Received: from [130.15.119.197] (DU197.N119.QueensU.CA [130.15.119.197]) by educ.queensu.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA17372 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199904212331.TAA06839@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:48:58 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Don Kersey Subject: Re: Two cards visible Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner said (in part) >L58B2 tells us the player >designates which card to play, and the other becomes a penalty card. So >we go to L50B to decide whether the penalty card is major or minor. But surely this is not the correct procedure. The director must first explain the full consequences of the possible choices before asking the offender which card he wishes to designate as being played. If those consequences are clearly explained, the offender will normally want to designate the card played intentionally. I have a subsidiary question about this situation. The other day, my partner switched to the nine of diamonds from 97 doubleton - but as he played the nine, the hitherto concealed deuce detached itself from the back of the nine and both cards landed exposed. It was clear to everyone what had happened. If he had been given a correct and full explanation of his options (he wasn't), he would have designated the nine, although that would be systemically the wrong lead from 972. In that case, what am I authorized to know about partner's diamond holding? Since I held the 8 myself, must I play as though partner's lead is from a doubleton, or can I allow for the possibility of what actually happened? _________________________________________________________________________ Don Kersey kerseyd@educ.queensu.ca (613) - 533 - 6000 - 77878 Kingston, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 02:29:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:29:55 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA18855 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:29:43 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA25080 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA07330 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:29:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904221629.MAA07330@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Don Kersey > The director must first > explain the full consequences of the possible choices before asking the > offender which card he wishes to designate as being played. Yes, of course the TD must explain the consequences before offering the player a choice: L10C1. The argument up 'til now is concerned with what choices are available, i.e. the TD's reasoning before he gets to the point of offering a choice to the player. > If those > consequences are clearly explained, the offender will normally want to > designate the card played intentionally. But the whole point pf the previous argument is whether the player's intention should be investigated at all. For example, what if the two exposed cards are an honor and a small one, and in fact (but unknown to anyone else at the table) the player intended to play the small one? David will ask the player which card he intended, find out (if the player is honest), and then will rule that whichever card is played, the other is a major penalty card. John and I will not ask, and we will tell the player that he may play the small one and leave the honor as a major penalty card, or he may play the honor and leave the small one as a minor penalty card. Do you see the difference? I know which ruling I prefer, but obviously the language gives scope for disagreement. > partner switched to the nine of diamonds from 97 doubleton - but as he > played the nine, the hitherto concealed deuce detached itself from the back > of the nine and both cards landed exposed. It was clear to everyone what > had happened. So it's obvious that the nine was intended? Then I think we all agree on the ruling. In fact, you could argue that this is not a L58B case at all: the 9 was played, and the 2 was accidentally exposed. If you believe the latter (and here the TD certainly needs to determine the facts), the 9 is played, and the 2 is dealt with under L50 (minor penalty card). But if there's any doubt, I'd tend to rule L58B and let the player decide what he wants to do. > If he had been given a correct and full explanation of his > options (he wasn't), he would have designated the nine, although that would > be systemically the wrong lead from 972. In that case, what am I authorized > to know about partner's diamond holding? Since I held the 8 myself, must I > play as though partner's lead is from a doubleton, or can I allow for the > possibility of what actually happened? L50C says "information gained through seeing the penalty card" is UI. I would interpret this as including the information that partner might not have seen the card himself. In fact, this seems pretty clear. Suppose no cards are exposed, but partner suddenly rearranges his hand and says "Oops, I didn't see that card!" I think we all will agree this is UI (a mannerism in L16A terms). So if I understand the position, yes, you have to play partner for a doubleton, or perhaps a singleton, or any other holding from which the nine would be the proper lead. Or more accurately, you _may not_ play partner for any holding from which the 9 would be systemically wrong unless there is no LA. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 02:41:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:41:09 +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 CAA18905 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:41:02 +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 RAA25069 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:40:51 +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 RAA22214 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:40:50 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07674 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:40:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:40:48 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199904221640.RAA07674@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another aspect of (full) disclosure happened to me (with CTD Wales in attendance). The auction started with 1C (alerted, correctly) and a 1H overcall. 1C was natural but could be three cards, 1H was intended as per their defence to an artifical 1C. The opener became declarer and the overcaller blurted-out "when I bid 1H, I thought 1C was artificial". Declarer now wanted to know what 1H meant, and David and I considered whether this was a question he could ask. Reading L20F1 "questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made", we decided that a 1H overcall of an artificial 1C was not a call actually made, nor a call which was available: because there was not an artificial 1C bid to overcall. In fact, I was not called until after the overcaller's partner had made an incorrect explanation of a 1H overcall of an artificial 1C; we decided that this incorrect explanation was MI or an illegal deception. However, declarer could not make any more tricks with the correct explanation so no damage. Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 02:55:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:55:26 +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 CAA18969 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:55:20 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA04782; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001b01be8ce0$e4f24c40$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "blml" References: <9904220906.0CSO100@bbs.hal-pc.org> Subject: Re: FULL DISC Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:45:30 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote, contradicting David Grabiner: > > My curiosity aroused, I went to my alert policy file and this is what I > found: > > Part X: Delayed (or Post) Alerts > > A delayed Alert is used for Conventional calls above the level of 3NT, > starting with openers rebid. > > Once the auction has progressed to the point that opener has had the > opportunity to make a rebid, no > conventional calls at the four level or higher should be Alerted until the > auction is over. The declaring side > must make their delayed Alerts before the opening lead. Defenders wait until > they have made the opening lead > before they explain calls requiring a delayed Alert. As with normal Alerts, > the partner of the person making the > Alertable call is the person who makes the delayed Alert and explains the > agreement. > > EXAMPLE: 1H Pass 1S Pass > 4D (splinter) > > There is no Alert at the time for the 4D bid. After the auction, the 1H > bidder must Alert and explain, as required, > the meaning of the call. > > EXAMPLE: 1C Pass 1H Pass > 2H Pass [4C,4D,4S] > > If there was a conventional meaning attached to any of these calls -- ace > asking, splinter or something else -- > the Alert would take place after the auction. > > Apparently, it is all calls [as opposed to only bids] that are not alerted. > Rog, I don't understand how you could have missed the following paragraph in Part X, which immediately precedes "Once the auction has...." on page 13 of 16 "The Alert for a double, redouble, or pass that requires one is ALWAYS given immediately. For example, in the auction 1D-P-1H-P-4C-x where the double says do not lead a club, an alert is given immediately." A similar statement is made on page 4 of 16: "the alerts for doubles redoubles and passes are ALWAYS immediate, never delayed." Perhaps you have an obsolete or erroneous version of the 16-page Alert procedure shown on the ACBL website and recapped on David Stevenson's website. The use of "calls" when "bids" would be the proper word is a common mistake that should not have been made by the ACBL. The above words should be: "Defenders wait until they have made the opening lead before they explain bids requiring an Alert." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 04:35:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 04:35:45 +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 EAA19281 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 04:35:37 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA15408; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004601be8cee$e832c8e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com><19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com><371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> <3.0.5.32.19990422114633.00846e60@maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:26:02 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > >Trevor Walker wrote: > > > >>It might be a good idea if sponsoring organisations required each > >>partnership in a teams match to furnish all (i.e. all 4) of their > >>opponents with a convention card. > > I can just see it now: "Partner, I see our opponents at the other table are > playing weak NTs, let's switch to weak NTs to minimize the system > differences." > > Now, the opponents will, of course, want to switch to strong NTs to foil > the opponents' strategy. > I investigated this paradoxical situation some time ago, using this example (which is different from the case cited above): "I see you play light preempts, against which we will play optional doubles." "In that case, we will play sound preempts." "In that case, we will play takeout doubles." "In that case...." The answer to this situation is found on page 3 of "ACBL Regulations on Conventional Bids and Carding", item 2.: "Changing Bidding Methods During Session "1. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with the permission of the DIC. (A director might allow a pair to change a convention, but would not allow a pair to change their basic system. "2. At the onset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense." So, they cannot vary their system without the DIC's permission *during* a session in any case, but can do so beforehand if they manage to see your card before you see theirs (no "alteration" having yet occurred). Now, let's say they switch from light to sound preempts after noting you play optional doubles. Item 2 says you can then switch to takeout doubles, countering their switch, but they can't switch back. Moreover, Item 1 of the regulation says they cannot switch again during the same session when facing new opponents who play takeout doubles. Somehow this doesn't seem right, and my feeling is that there could be a better regulation. As written, it does not cover Tim's example, since weak notrumps are neither a convention nor a preemptive bid, and anyway it is not a "defense" that is being changed. Now, can anyone come up with a better wording for the regulation, one that will handle Tim's example and cover pair games too? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 05:07:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 05:07:47 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA19377 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 05:07:41 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-20.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.20]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA29448; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:07:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37201BCF.FB3A7A6D@idt.net> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:05:51 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jaycue@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com><19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com><371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> <3.0.5.32.19990422114633.00846e60@maine.rr.com> <004601be8cee$e832c8e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm a little confused by some of this. Am I REQUIRED to choose one or the other style of defense? Many people use varying conventions in competitive situations, Hamilton Vs Weak NT, but DONT Vs Strong NT being very common in Southern California. I'm sure there are others, as well. With one partner I have agreed to play Fishbein vs Light pre-empts, and takeout doubles vs "normal" pre-empts? Now the Opps have no way out. They pick their style, and I pick a defense. Is there something wrong with this approach? Irv "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > >Trevor Walker wrote: > > > > > >>It might be a good idea if sponsoring organisations required each > > >>partnership in a teams match to furnish all (i.e. all 4) of their > > >>opponents with a convention card. > > > > I can just see it now: "Partner, I see our opponents at the other > table are > > playing weak NTs, let's switch to weak NTs to minimize the system > > differences." > > > > Now, the opponents will, of course, want to switch to strong NTs to > foil > > the opponents' strategy. > > > I investigated this paradoxical situation some time ago, using this > example (which is different from the case cited above): > > "I see you play light preempts, against which we will play optional > doubles." > > "In that case, we will play sound preempts." > > "In that case, we will play takeout doubles." > > "In that case...." > > The answer to this situation is found on page 3 of "ACBL Regulations on > Conventional Bids and Carding", item 2.: > > "Changing Bidding Methods During Session > > "1. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with > the permission of the DIC. (A director might allow a pair to change a > convention, but would not allow a pair to change their basic system. > > "2. At the onset of a round or session, a pair may review their > opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the > opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be > announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system > after being informed of these alterations in defense." > > So, they cannot vary their system without the DIC's permission *during* > a session in any case, but can do so beforehand if they manage to see > your card before you see theirs (no "alteration" having yet occurred). > Now, let's say they switch from light to sound preempts after noting you > play optional doubles. Item 2 says you can then switch to takeout > doubles, countering their switch, but they can't switch back. Moreover, > Item 1 of the regulation says they cannot switch again during the same > session when facing new opponents who play takeout doubles. > > Somehow this doesn't seem right, and my feeling is that there could be a > better regulation. As written, it does not cover Tim's example, since > weak notrumps are neither a convention nor a preemptive bid, and anyway > it is not a "defense" that is being changed. > > Now, can anyone come up with a better wording for the regulation, one > that will handle Tim's example and cover pair games too? > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 06:47:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 06:47:47 +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 GAA19774 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 06:47:39 +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 PAA01159 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:47:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0L4N502K Thu, 22 Apr 99 15:02:25 Message-ID: <9904221502.0L4N502@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 99 15:02:25 Subject: FULL DISC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Tim Goodwin wrote: B>> >Trevor Walker wrote: B>> > B>> >>It might be a good idea if sponsoring organisations required each B>> >>partnership in a teams match to furnish all (i.e. all 4) of their B>> >>opponents with a convention card. B>> B>> I can just see it now: "Partner, I see our opponents at the other B>table are B>> playing weak NTs, let's switch to weak NTs to minimize the system B>> differences." B>> B>> Now, the opponents will, of course, want to switch to strong NTs to B>foil B>> the opponents' strategy. B>> B>I investigated this paradoxical situation some time ago, using this B>example (which is different from the case cited above): B>"I see you play light preempts, against which we will play optional B>doubles." 'Partner, We use optional doubles against light preempts AND we use takeout doubles against sound preempts. Agreed?' Roger Pewick B>"In that case, we will play sound preempts." B>"In that case, we will play takeout doubles." B>"In that case...." B>The answer to this situation is found on page 3 of "ACBL Regulations on B>Conventional Bids and Carding", item 2.: B>"Changing Bidding Methods During Session B>"1. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with B>the permission of the DIC. (A director might allow a pair to change a B>convention, but would not allow a pair to change their basic system. B>"2. At the onset of a round or session, a pair may review their B>opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the B>opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be B>announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system B>after being informed of these alterations in defense." B>So, they cannot vary their system without the DIC's permission *during* B>a session in any case, but can do so beforehand if they manage to see B>your card before you see theirs (no "alteration" having yet occurred). B>Now, let's say they switch from light to sound preempts after noting you B>play optional doubles. Item 2 says you can then switch to takeout B>doubles, countering their switch, but they can't switch back. Moreover, B>Item 1 of the regulation says they cannot switch again during the same B>session when facing new opponents who play takeout doubles. B>Somehow this doesn't seem right, and my feeling is that there could be a B>better regulation. As written, it does not cover Tim's example, since B>weak notrumps are neither a convention nor a preemptive bid, and anyway B>it is not a "defense" that is being changed. B>Now, can anyone come up with a better wording for the regulation, one B>that will handle Tim's example and cover pair games too? If they can't even get Section X. of the Alert Procedure correct, why should there be any concern about something important like changing the rules? B>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 08:54:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 08:54:47 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA20082 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 08:54:40 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA08306 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:54:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA07666 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:54:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:54:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904222254.SAA07666@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Split/Weighted X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > In importing 12C3 the WBFLC acknowledged that 12C2 > acts unfairly at times, that there is sometimes a better answer. In > providing scope for a better answer when appropriate the > Committee should not be held responsible for the standards of > implementation. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Especially given the fact that L12C3 contains no standards of implementation. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 09:35:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:35:46 +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 JAA20188 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:35:42 +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 JAA07670 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:35:41 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990423093624.009bcc40@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:36:24 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: List of important beings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > If one of *my* friends out there could send *ME* a copy of the most >recent list [to Quango ] I will send you a >virtual fish as a reward. My dibs on that fish ! Done. >Purrs and headbutts Markus From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 09:43:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:43:46 +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 JAA20243 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:43:37 +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 10aT7x-0002GX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:43:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:54:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: What is your judgement? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. B10 KT7 W N E S E/ALL JT874 J93 1C DBL Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P K532 Q6 P 2H AP T764 K JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 A9 AQ852 86 Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 09:44:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:44:00 +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 JAA20257 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:43:54 +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 10aT83-0005q4-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:43:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 00:04:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Ghestem!!!!! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a little tricky, and the correct ruling in England/Wales may be different from the correct ruling elsewhere because of our regulations. B19 A63 W N E S S/E-W 5 965 P T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP KQT8 73 Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 Q83 AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked T96 At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C was Ghestem showing the majors. The TD was called then. There was a suggestion the 4C was slow, but it was agreed by three of the players it was not, so that was accepted by the fourth player. The TD was recalled at the end of the hand. He asked North why he had bid 4C, and North explained that with a singleton club 4C is obvious. He asked South why he passed 4C: South explained that they had had a discussion a month previously as to whether to abandon Ghestem or not, and he was not completely certain of the outcome. North agreed they did play Ghestem but he had forgotten. It was shown as Ghestem on both CCs. This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 10:08:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:08:07 +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 KAA20326 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:08:00 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa26670; 22 Apr 99 17:07 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: What is your judgement? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:54:31 PDT." Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:07:16 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904221707.aa26670@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive > player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original > double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, > teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. I rule that the table result stands. To me, passing with the North hand is not a LA. You have at least a 5-3 heart fit and a fair chance of a 5-4 (unless South would always compete on with four hearts). Plus, South is likely to have some spade length, making the KT that suit even more valuable (a bit more than it would be if the KT were in diamonds). Selling out to 2C with North's hand is IMHO ridiculous. 2H seems to be the only logical call with North's hand, and in any case, the slow pass doesn't suggest any non-pass call over any other, so North's options aren't restricted by the UI. I can't for the life of me figure out what South was thinking of doing, although that's irrelevant to the question. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 10:10:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:10:50 +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 KAA20352 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:10:42 +1000 Received: from p39s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.58] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10aTY6-0007Qs-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:10:31 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:12:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8d1d$f154ff40$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 6:21 PM Subject: Re: Full disclosure > >Another aspect of (full) disclosure happened to me (with CTD Wales in >attendance). > >The auction started with 1C (alerted, correctly) and a 1H overcall. >1C was natural but could be three cards, 1H was intended as per their >defence to an artifical 1C. > >The opener became declarer and the overcaller blurted-out "when I bid >1H, I thought 1C was artificial". Declarer now wanted to know what 1H >meant, and David and I considered whether this was a question he could >ask. I agree that the Law 20 right to ask questions about calls made and relevant calls not made does not give dec the right to ask about a defence to a strong club if he's not playing one. However the opp has given gratuitous information and this is authorised. >Reading L20F1 "questions may be asked about calls actually made or >about relevant calls available but not made", we decided that a 1H >overcall of an artificial 1C was not a call actually made, nor a call >which was available: because there was not an artificial 1C bid to >overcall. While the meaning of the systemic defensive 1H over a strong club was not relevant at the time the 1H call was made. The bidder has now made it relevant by giving declarer the AI that he has misbid. He was obviously unaware that Law75B made it uneccessary for him to do so. I think Dec is now allowed to ask the meaning of a 1H overcall of a strong club in their system. Surely he can glean this information by looking at the opps CC. anyway "Law 75A - Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents . > >In fact, I was not called until after the overcaller's partner had made >an incorrect explanation of a 1H overcall of an artificial 1C; we >decided that this incorrect explanation was MI or an illegal >deception. However, declarer could not make any more tricks with the >correct explanation so no damage. Overcallers partner has received UI. How is dec to know whether to claim that he has been damaged by the use of this, if he is not allowed to know what it is? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 10:22:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:22:59 +1000 Received: from znet.groupz.net (znet.groupz.net [208.234.232.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA20389 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:22:52 +1000 Received: from nathanhome (ags-5200-5-p21.groupz.net [208.138.66.229]) by znet.groupz.net (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA02165 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:20:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ed01be8d1e$e2672b60$e5428ad0@wxsms.com> From: "Steve Nathan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Ruling on Bidding Requirements Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:18:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EA_01BE8CFD.5A8C20E0" 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_00EA_01BE8CFD.5A8C20E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At the bridge club last night, I was called to the table to rule on a = "failure to alert." It seems the "offender" had bid one no-trump = bypassing a four card major. The complainers said he did this with some = regularity and that his partner should have alerted this.=20 I am not sure if there is any such requirement. =20 The "offender" played one no making three while the rest of the field = was in three hearts making or four hearts down one. The sequence of = bidding was: pass pass 1 club pass 1NT pass pass pass =20 What is the proper ruling? I adjusted the score to four hearts down one = but suggested that if he wished he could appeal to a committee. He did, = and the committe revised the score to three hearts making. =20 Thanks, Steve Nathan ------=_NextPart_000_00EA_01BE8CFD.5A8C20E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At the bridge club last night, I was called to the = table to=20 rule on a "failure to alert."  It seems the "offender" had bid one = no-trump=20 bypassing a four card major.  The complainers said he did this with = some=20 regularity and that his partner should have alerted = this. 
 
I am not sure if there is any such = requirement. =20
 
The "offender" played one no making three while the = rest of=20 the field was in three hearts making or four hearts down one.  The = sequence=20 of bidding was:
pass    pass    1=20 club    pass
1NT    pass    = pass=20     pass   
 
What is the proper ruling?  I adjusted the = score to four=20 hearts down one but suggested that if he wished he could appeal to a=20 committee.  He did, and the committe revised the score to three = hearts=20 making. 
 
Thanks,
 
Steve Nathan
------=_NextPart_000_00EA_01BE8CFD.5A8C20E0-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 10:35:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:35:34 +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 KAA20423 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:35:20 +1000 Received: from p10s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.17] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10aTw1-0007dn-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:35:13 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What is your judgement? Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:36:58 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8d21$658e14c0$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 Without the hesitation I would expect a 2H bid from N. Who defends 2C these days anyway:-) Now that there has been a hesitation the goal posts have moved. The bid has become somewhat safer in the almost certain knowledge the partner does not have a 4441 12 count. I do not think that the 2H bid is a use of UI. Pass is IMO not a logical alternative. We have min 17 HCPs, bidding is not likely to push them to a making game, on what I have heard of the legal auction. My ruling = Result stands. Anne. -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 1:09 AM Subject: What is your judgement? > > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive >player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original >double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 11:06:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:06:58 +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 LAA20517 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:06:51 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00531; 22 Apr 99 18:06 PDT To: bridge-laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:18:58 PDT." <00ed01be8d1e$e2672b60$e5428ad0@wxsms.com> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:06:16 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904221806.aa00531@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Nathan wrote: > At the bridge club last night, I was called to the table to rule on a > "failure to alert." It seems the "offender" had bid one no-trump > bypassing a four card major. The complainers said he did this with some > regularity and that his partner should have alerted this. > > I am not sure if there is any such requirement. Yes, in the ACBL. The Alert chart has an item "1NT/1C or 1D not denying four spades or four hearts" in the Alertable column. However, I don't know where you're from, and this information is important to provide when asking about things like alerting regulations. > The "offender" played one no making three while the rest of the field > was in three hearts making or four hearts down one. Which way? Do you mean that same side that bid 1NT was in hearts in the rest of the field; or do you mean that their *opponents* sitting in the other direction were playing hearts? Please be clear on this. > The sequence of bidding was: > pass pass 1 club pass > 1NT pass pass pass > > What is the proper ruling? I adjusted the score to four hearts down one > but suggested that if he wished he could appeal to a committee. He did, > and the committe revised the score to three hearts making. It's impossible to rule on this without seeing all four hands. There's no UI issue here. The only issue is MI, and the questions that need to be asked are: (1) Was there misinformation? (2) If so, would the opponents have done anything different had they been given the correct information? If the answer to (1) is yes and (2) is no, then there's no basis for an adjustment. You cannot say "South [or whoever] should have bid 1H instead of 1NT according to his announced system, therefore we will change South's bid to 1H". (Assuming that the 1NT bidder's side was playing in hearts in the rest of the field.) The Laws absolutely do not let you do this. If the answers to (1) and (2) are both yes, then we need to determine what the likely result would have been if the opponents had been given the correct information, giving the non-offenders the most favorable likely result. (Note that I consider this to be very unlikely, even without seeing the hands. What could the opponents possibly have that would make them stay out of the auction after 1C-1NT that denies a 4cM, but would make them bid after 1C-1NT that *doesn't* deny a 4cM? This seems illogical to me.) It's not clear that there was MI, however, even if the player did sometimes bypass a major to bid 1NT. You're always allowed to use judgment. Sometimes I will do this if I feel my major isn't worth showing. Once, an irregular partner bid 1NT over my 1C with four spades. My RHO asked about 1NT, and I told her it was 8-10 HCP, balanced, denies a 4-card major. She complained to me the hand was over and she had found out that partner had four spades, saying I had given her misinformation that caused her to misdefend. Partner then displayed his spade suit for everyone to see: 5-4-3-2. Literally. I looked at it and told RHO, "That's not a four-card major." Really, if a player doesn't consider a suit like this worth showing, he has that right, and I don't believe it's necessary to Alert to inform the opponents about exceptional possibilities like this. Players need to realize that occasional violations of agreements based on bridge judgment are part of the game. On the other hand, if a player regularly bids 1NT over 1C with hands like KJxx Kx Qxxx xxx, then this does create a de facto agreement that needs to be alerted. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 11:25:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:25:52 +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 LAA20565 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:25:45 +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 10aUio-0006Es-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:25:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:18:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > This is a little tricky, and the correct ruling in England/Wales may >be different from the correct ruling elsewhere because of our >regulations. > > B19 A63 W N E S > S/E-W 5 > 965 P > T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H > AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP > KQT8 73 > Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 > Q83 > AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked > T96 > > At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C was >Ghestem showing the majors. The TD was called then. There was a >suggestion the 4C was slow, but it was agreed by three of the players it >was not, so that was accepted by the fourth player. > > The TD was recalled at the end of the hand. He asked North why he had >bid 4C, and North explained that with a singleton club 4C is obvious. 100 times "I must proofread more carefully" ^^^^ Heart >He asked South why he passed 4C: South explained that they had had a >discussion a month previously as to whether to abandon Ghestem or not, >and he was not completely certain of the outcome. North agreed they did >play Ghestem but he had forgotten. It was shown as Ghestem on both CCs. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > Who has UI? North from the alert. South? Nope, can't see it. Let's proceed. 3H, preference for majors, np 4C, why didn't S open a weak 2? he hasn't got H, 4C is obvious P, Oh what the f***, I don't have any UI but that b*****d Probst will be writing more sarcastic articles for the EBU Magazine about forgotten Ghestem. Players without UI can do what they like, including passing game forcing cue-bids. The whole case rests on whether South has UI. IMO he doesn't. My understanding is that the Dutch just line NS up against the wall, which I agree with, but in the UK you'll get away with this one. I'd not even give West his bid back. South would gain brownie points in my mind if he said, "I bet pard's forgotten, we have had a discussion recently" before the opening lead. -- 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 Apr 23 11:26:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:26:08 +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 LAA20564 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:25:44 +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 10aUin-000DZw-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:25:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:24:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What is your judgement? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive >player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original >double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > the 1H bid has a box of 0-6 points and a 4 card suit. Pass is not a LA, as 1) The oppo have a known 9 card fit or better. 2) We have an 8 card fit or a combined 23 count. Even DWS would have to allow this one. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 11:39:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:39:59 +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 LAA20632 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:39:50 +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 10aUwS-00022n-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:39:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:38:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements In-Reply-To: <00ed01be8d1e$e2672b60$e5428ad0@wxsms.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <00ed01be8d1e$e2672b60$e5428ad0@wxsms.com>, Steve Nathan writes >At the bridge club last night, I was called to the table to rule on a "failure >to alert." It seems the "offender" had bid one no-trump bypassing a four card >major. The complainers said he did this with some regularity and that his >partner should have alerted this. > >I am not sure if there is any such requirement. > >The "offender" played one no making three while the rest of the field was in >three hearts making or four hearts down one. The sequence of bidding was: > pass pass 1 club pass > 1NT pass pass pass > >What is the proper ruling? I adjusted the score to four hearts down one On what possible basis can you adjust to 4H down one after an auction that starts 1C and ends 1NT? That is just downright illegal. You might just as well adjust to 7Dx - 9 -2600. Would the defenders have defended better if the 1NT call had been alerted, or would they have got back into the auction? If so I'd need to check the alerting regs for the Country, and a Procedural penalty might be in order and a more favourable score. If not result stands, but I might award a PP if the regs make it alertable. > but >suggested that if he wished he could appeal to a committee. He did, and the >committe revised the score to three hearts making. This Englishman is speechless. > >Thanks, > >Steve Nathan -- 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 Apr 23 11:45:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:45:14 +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 LAA20662 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:44:58 +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 10aV1K-0003be-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 01:44:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:43:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: List of important beings References: <3.0.32.19990423093624.009bcc40@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990423093624.009bcc40@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn writes >> If one of *my* friends out there could send *ME* a copy of the most >>recent list [to Quango ] I will send you a >>virtual fish as a reward. >My dibs on that fish ! Done. I don't think you get the fish! Your emails did not contain the list [neither of them] !!!!!! The fishes: __ Craig Senior >|<<__>'> Adam Beneschan >|<<__>'> Joep Lohmann >|<<__>'> Anne Jones >|<<__>'> Nanki Poo and I would like to offer my condolences to several people that have lost pets recently, including Adam, Wally, Paul, Pat and Anne. Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Adam Beneschan Mango MIA 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, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB 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, Bridget, Depo RB 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 !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 13:29:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:29:00 +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 NAA20899 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:28:52 +1000 Received: from default (ptp244.ac.net [205.138.55.153]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id XAA26933 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904230328.XAA26933@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:31:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:04 AM 4/23/99 +0100, you wrote: > > This is a little tricky, and the correct ruling in England/Wales may >be different from the correct ruling elsewhere because of our >regulations. > > B19 A63 W N E S > S/E-W 5 > 965 P > T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H > AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP > KQT8 73 > Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 > Q83 > AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked > T96 > > At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C was >Ghestem showing the majors. The TD was called then. There was a >suggestion the 4C was slow, but it was agreed by three of the players it >was not, so that was accepted by the fourth player. > > The TD was recalled at the end of the hand. He asked North why he had >bid 4C, and North explained that with a singleton club 4C is obvious. >He asked South why he passed 4C: South explained that they had had a >discussion a month previously as to whether to abandon Ghestem or not, >and he was not completely certain of the outcome. North agreed they did >play Ghestem but he had forgotten. It was shown as Ghestem on both CCs. Looks to me that opposite a passed partner, the argument could be made that South must have a club fit and wants to raise but is trying his own five-card suit on the way. I agree with North - he has to go back to clubs with a singleton heart. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. Don't understand why the above info is given - seems irrelevent. The players are entitled to a Committee if they are fighting for last and next-to-last. I don't think an AC should ever know the standings, but I know one can usually work it out when you see who walks into the room... Linda > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 13:28:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:28:59 +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 NAA20898 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:28:51 +1000 Received: from default (ptp244.ac.net [205.138.55.153]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id XAA26928 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:28:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904230328.XAA26928@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:25:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: What is your judgement? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:54 PM 4/22/99 +0100, you wrote: > > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive >player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original >double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. Wonder why West didn't bid 3C. Anyway, I would let North bid 2H. If the TB supposedly suggested that South was thinking of bidding more hearts, then he didn't have a TB for that or 18+. Hmmmm... this doesn't have much merit. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. Why is this info included? Isn't it completely irrelevent? Based on this and the other post with what looks like from the same event, it looks like you had some cranky customers that are beginning to try my patience! Linda > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 13:34:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:34:59 +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 NAA20930 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:34:50 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveie9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.201]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA01787 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990422233236.006f9b24@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:32:36 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements In-Reply-To: <00ed01be8d1e$e2672b60$e5428ad0@wxsms.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:18 PM 4/22/99 -0400, Steve Nathan wrote: >At the bridge club last night, I was called to the table to rule on a "failure to alert." It >seems the "offender" had bid one no-trump bypassing a four card major. The complainers said >he did this with some regularity and that his partner should have alerted this. >I am not sure if there is any such requirement. >What is the proper ruling? I adjusted the score to four hearts down one but suggested that >if he wished he could appeal to a committee. He did, and the committe revised the score to >three hearts making. 1. Why did you adjust the score if you don't know whether such a requirement exists? 2. If there is such a requirement, then the infraction is a failure to alert. It is in no sense of the word an "offense" (except perhaps against good bidding) to bypass a four-card major in the auction you gave. To find a basis for redress (and hence score adjustment), you must find that the opponents were damaged _by the failure to alert_. This is a very difficult case to make, IMO, especially without seeing the hands. Basically, you ought to have some logical basis for concluding that the opponents would have been more likely to act after an appropriate explanation ("partner may have bypassed a 4-card major suit") than they were without such an explanation, and that such action might well have resulted in a better score for them. I have a hard time imagining why opponents who were willing to defend 1nt without this explanation would have been more likely to come into the auction with such an explanation. If it would have made any difference at all, it seems to make defending 1nt more attractive rather than less. 3. The correct ruling, either by you or failing that by a competent AC, is to let the table result stand. Any score adjustment is really just an attempt to punish a fix, refusing to accept the fact that sometimes bad bridge is more successful than good. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 17:04:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:04:38 +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 RAA21325 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:04:30 +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 HAA00259 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:03:55 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 HAA05952 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:02:06 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990423090427.007cd420@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:04:27 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Full disclosure In-Reply-To: <004601be8cee$e832c8e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> <19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com> <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> <3.0.5.32.19990422114633.00846e60@maine.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:26 22/04/99 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Tim Goodwin wrote: > >> >Trevor Walker wrote: >> > >> >>It might be a good idea if sponsoring organisations required each >> >>partnership in a teams match to furnish all (i.e. all 4) of their >> >>opponents with a convention card. >> >> I can just see it now: "Partner, I see our opponents at the other >table are >> playing weak NTs, let's switch to weak NTs to minimize the system >> differences." >> >> Now, the opponents will, of course, want to switch to strong NTs to >foil >> the opponents' strategy. >> >I investigated this paradoxical situation some time ago, using this >example (which is different from the case cited above): > >"I see you play light preempts, against which we will play optional >doubles." > >"In that case, we will play sound preempts." > >"In that case, we will play takeout doubles." > >"In that case...." > >The answer to this situation is found on page 3 of "ACBL Regulations on >Conventional Bids and Carding", item 2.: > >"Changing Bidding Methods During Session > >"1. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with >the permission of the DIC. (A director might allow a pair to change a >convention, but would not allow a pair to change their basic system. > >"2. At the onset of a round or session, a pair may review their >opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the >opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be >announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system >after being informed of these alterations in defense." > >So, they cannot vary their system without the DIC's permission *during* >a session in any case, but can do so beforehand if they manage to see >your card before you see theirs (no "alteration" having yet occurred). >Now, let's say they switch from light to sound preempts after noting you >play optional doubles. Item 2 says you can then switch to takeout >doubles, countering their switch, but they can't switch back. Moreover, >Item 1 of the regulation says they cannot switch again during the same >session when facing new opponents who play takeout doubles. > >Somehow this doesn't seem right, and my feeling is that there could be a >better regulation. As written, it does not cover Tim's example, since >weak notrumps are neither a convention nor a preemptive bid, and anyway >it is not a "defense" that is being changed. > >Now, can anyone come up with a better wording for the regulation, one >that will handle Tim's example and cover pair games too? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > We had a previous experience of this paradoxical situation and my personnal conclusion was that it should be resolved by taking into account its chronological aspect: The choice of a convention (or agreement, style...) should be allowed to be made in reference to an anterior (anteriority in the sense of the running of the bidding sequence) opponent's bid but not in reference to a bid to come. You should be allowed to write on your CC: we play such defense against weak NT and such other against strong NT, but not: we open light against strong-club pairs and sound otherwise. In case of conflict, each pair should, in chronological order, describe his system: 1st-hand opening, then overcall of 1st-hand opening, 2nd-hand opening and so on. I met once, in France, such a problem, which a TD could not conveniently resolve and which led to a jurisprudence but not to a clear written regulation. 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 Apr 23 17:25:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:25:14 +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 RAA21385 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:25:08 +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 HAA01166 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:24:32 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 HAA07765 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:22:44 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990423092506.007d52f0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:25:06 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 00:04 23/04/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > This is a little tricky, and the correct ruling in England/Wales may >be different from the correct ruling elsewhere because of our >regulations. > > B19 A63 W N E S > S/E-W 5 > 965 P > T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H > AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP > KQT8 73 > Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 > Q83 > AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked > T96 > > At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C was >Ghestem showing the majors. The TD was called then. There was a >suggestion the 4C was slow, but it was agreed by three of the players it >was not, so that was accepted by the fourth player. > > The TD was recalled at the end of the hand. He asked North why he had >bid 4C, and North explained that with a singleton club 4C is obvious. >He asked South why he passed 4C: South explained that they had had a >discussion a month previously as to whether to abandon Ghestem or not, >and he was not completely certain of the outcome. North agreed they did >play Ghestem but he had forgotten. It was shown as Ghestem on both CCs. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > >-- >David Stevenson Only one problem to be considered: UI resulting from the alert and suggesting IMO the 4C bid chosen. I think there are LA (3S for example) and I think there could have been some more rounds of bidding to end with 5C. I should vote for an assigned score of 300 EW to both sides. 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 Apr 23 17:31:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA21413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:31:44 +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 RAA21408 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:31:37 +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 HAA01416 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:31:02 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 HAA08667 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:29:13 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990423093135.007df420@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:31:35 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: What is your judgement? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:54 22/04/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive >player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original >double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. > Judgement indeed. Mine, for what it's worth: UI to N, suggesting any bid over pass; no LA to 2H; result stands. > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. Good holiday to everyone. 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 Fri Apr 23 19:54:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:54:57 +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 TAA21695 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:54:50 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-97.uunet.be [194.7.9.97]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA08769 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:54:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37203FE2.81B3C33D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:39:46 +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: Ghestem!!!!! References: <3.0.5.32.19990423092506.007d52f0@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > At 00:04 23/04/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > This is a little tricky, and the correct ruling in England/Wales may > >be different from the correct ruling elsewhere because of our > >regulations. > > > > B19 A63 W N E S > > S/E-W 5 > > 965 P > > T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H > > AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP > > KQT8 73 > > Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 > > Q83 > > AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked > > T96 > > > > At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C was > >Ghestem showing the majors. The TD was called then. There was a > >suggestion the 4C was slow, but it was agreed by three of the players it > >was not, so that was accepted by the fourth player. > > > > The TD was recalled at the end of the hand. He asked North why he had > >bid 4C, and North explained that with a singleton club 4C is obvious. > >He asked South why he passed 4C: South explained that they had had a > >discussion a month previously as to whether to abandon Ghestem or not, > >and he was not completely certain of the outcome. North agreed they did > >play Ghestem but he had forgotten. It was shown as Ghestem on both CCs. > > > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, > >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > > > >-- > >David Stevenson > > Only one problem to be considered: UI resulting from the alert and > suggesting IMO the 4C bid chosen. I think there are LA (3S for example) and > I think there could have been some more rounds of bidding to end with 5C. I > should vote for an assigned score of 300 EW to both sides. > I like that one. I don't like automatic penalties for getting Ghestem wrong, but I do admire it when a TD comes up with some other LA, and proceeds from there. I wouldn't have found it myself maybe, but 5CX-2 has my vote as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 20:20:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:20:36 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21752 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 20:20:29 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ad4J-000KEh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 10:20:24 +0000 Message-ID: <+LPS1tBSP9H3EwrH@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:58:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements References: <00ed01be8d1e$e2672b60$e5428ad0@wxsms.com> In-Reply-To: <00ed01be8d1e$e2672b60$e5428ad0@wxsms.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Nathan wrote: > At the bridge club last night, I was called to the table to rule on=20 > a "failure to alert."=A0 It seems the "offender" had bid one no-trump= =20 > bypassing a four card major.=A0 The complainers said he did this with= =20 > some regularity and that his partner should have alerted this.=A0 > =A0 > I am not sure if there is any such requirement.=A0=20 Please quote your place of residence when posting. Not only is it polite to do so, but it is very necessary when talking about regulations like alerting which are different in different jurisdictions. > The "offender" played one no making three while the rest of the=20 > field was in three hearts making or four hearts down one.=A0 The=20 > sequence of bidding was: >>> pass=A0=A0=A0 pass=A0=A0=A0 1 club=A0=A0=A0 pass >>> 1NT=A0=A0=A0 pass=A0=A0=A0 pass =A0=A0=A0 pass=A0=A0=A0 >>> =A0 > What is the proper ruling?=A0 I adjusted the score to four hearts=20 > down one but suggested that if he wished he could appeal to a=20 > committee.=A0 He did, and the committe revised the score to three=20 > hearts making.=A0=20 Right. What was the infraction? Failure to alert, ie they misinformed opponents, if it is alertable. Well, it is in NAmerica anyway, and I have a suspicion you are from there. So, if it affected their bidding or play you could adjust the score. BUT! You have adjusted the offenders bidding: you can't do that! To see that, what would have happened without the infraction? The opponents would have been alerted that 1NT may bypass a major. Would that get the contract to hearts? No, because it does not affect the *offenders'* bidding. No adjustment was suitable - I presume it did not affect the non- offenders bidding - unless it affected their defence, when you might give them a trick. The Committee seem to have got the Law wrong as you did. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 22:14:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:14:53 +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 WAA22019 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:14:46 +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 IAA00227 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 08:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990423081615.006f35a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 08:16:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is your judgement? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:54 PM 4/22/99 +0100, David wrote: > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive >player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original >double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. My initial reaction -- I await the discussion -- is that passing out 2C is not an LA for North; result stands. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 22:30:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA22103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:30:37 +1000 Received: from hermes.sron.rug.nl (hermes.sron.rug.nl [129.125.20.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA22098 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:30:31 +1000 Received: from sron.rug.nl (pc-joep.sron.rug.nl [129.125.20.150]) by hermes.sron.rug.nl (8.9.1/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA26233 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:34:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <372067CC.624B8E65@sron.rug.nl> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:30:04 +0200 From: "J.C.Lohmann" Organization: SRON X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > Players without UI can do what they like, including passing game forcing > cue-bids. The whole case rests on whether South has UI. IMO he doesn't. > > My understanding is that the Dutch just line NS up against the wall, > which I agree with, but in the UK you'll get away with this one. The Dutch National Authority for appeals has made jurisprudence for 'mistakes' with Ghestem. That's why directors in the Netherlands will seek for reasons to compensate the unoffending side. Mistakes should be automatically punished (or an adjusted score should be assigned), according to this jurisprudence. Some (national) directors believe that this jurisprudence is in conflict with the Law (I am). Facts: NS had a discussion about abandoning Ghestem. This was not disclosed to EW. South's passing of 4C indicates that NS don't have firm agreement on the 3C bid. Some players/directors would argue that South's bidding is very passive with two queens in partners suits and an ace. This gives further indication that South is not trusting his partner having the majors. Consideration: EW might have acted differently knowing that North can have clubs instead of the majors as stated on the convention card.. Facts: the 3C bid was alerted. Now North is in possession of UI. Consideration: Although it is unlikely, South might have a six card heart suit and chosen not to open a weak two in hearts for various reasons. After an alert North may not take any action on this UI. With three quick trick outside hearts, North can pass opposite a hand with weak but playable hearts. (If 3H promised club support, it should have been alerted.) Conclusion: IMO there was an infraction. EW were damaged. As a director I would choose for 3H doubled, minus 4 for both sides. Joep Lohmann From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 23:05:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:05:46 +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 XAA22252 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:05:29 +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 10afdB-0006Qk-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:04:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:34:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure References: <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> <19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com> <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> <3.0.5.32.19990422114633.00846e60@maine.rr.com> <004601be8cee$e832c8e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.19990423090427.007cd420@phedre.meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990423090427.007cd420@phedre.meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > We had a previous experience of this paradoxical situation and my >personnal conclusion was that it should be resolved by taking into account >its chronological aspect: >The choice of a convention (or agreement, style...) should be allowed to be >made in reference to an anterior (anteriority in the sense of the running >of the bidding sequence) opponent's bid but not in reference to a bid to come. > You should be allowed to write on your CC: we play such defense against >weak NT and such other against strong NT, but not: we open light against >strong-club pairs and sound otherwise. In case of conflict, each pair >should, in chronological order, describe his system: 1st-hand opening, then >overcall of 1st-hand opening, 2nd-hand opening and so on. > I met once, in France, such a problem, which a TD could not conveniently >resolve and which led to a jurisprudence but not to a clear written >regulation. I did not realise that people thought there was a problem. This is an old problem, easily resolvable, with no need of a regulation. Team A plays sound pre-empts against penalty doubles: weak pre-empts against takeout doubles. Team B plays takeout doubles against sound pre-empts: penalty doubles against weak pre-empts. Someone calls the Director: what should he do? Nothing. The agreements are known: let them play bridge. Now Team A opens 3H and Team B asks the meaning of the bid. Team A are required to answer, and an if ... then ... answer is unacceptable. They are required to tell the opponents how they play the bid. Once they have done so, Team B can use their defence to such an opening. So the paradox is easily resolved: the meaning of the first call must be decided in such a case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 23:23:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:23:25 +1000 Received: from juno.it.geodan.nl (node11412.a2000.nl [24.132.20.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA22313 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:23:18 +1000 Received: from zon.it.geodan.nl ([193.78.133.66]) by juno.it.geodan.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id 1409 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:22:36 +0200 Received: from geodan.nl ([193.78.133.125]) by zon.it.geodan.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.5) with ESMTP id AAA2FB0 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:23:00 +0200 Message-ID: <372073AD.3F691061@geodan.nl> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:20:45 +0200 From: "Sjoerd Schreuder" Organization: Geodan IT bv X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! References: <3.0.5.32.19990423092506.007d52f0@phedre.meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Note: I'm not a director, so feel free to ignore this post. Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > At 00:04 23/04/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > This is a little tricky, and the correct ruling in England/Wales may > >be different from the correct ruling elsewhere because of our > >regulations. > > > > B19 A63 W N E S > > S/E-W 5 > > 965 P > > T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H > > AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP > > KQT8 73 > > Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 > > Q83 > > AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked > > T96 > > > > At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C was > >Ghestem showing the majors. The TD was called then. There was a > >suggestion the 4C was slow, but it was agreed by three of the players it > >was not, so that was accepted by the fourth player. > > > > The TD was recalled at the end of the hand. He asked North why he had > >bid 4C, and North explained that with a singleton club 4C is obvious. > >He asked South why he passed 4C: South explained that they had had a > >discussion a month previously as to whether to abandon Ghestem or not, > >and he was not completely certain of the outcome. North agreed they did > >play Ghestem but he had forgotten. It was shown as Ghestem on both CCs. > > > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, > >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > > > >-- > >David Stevenson > > Only one problem to be considered: UI resulting from the alert and > suggesting IMO the 4C bid chosen. I think there are LA (3S for example) and > I think there could have been some more rounds of bidding to end with 5C. I > should vote for an assigned score of 300 EW to both sides. Does everybody play weak-only Ghestems nowadays, just in case partner forgets? What about the following bidding: W N E S p 1D 3C p 3H p 3S p 4D X 5C p 6S p p X p p 7C p p X ap I agree that 3S is a LA: when south shows hearts, 3NT seems a possibility. Without a diamond stopper, north can't bid it himself, but 3S will allow south to bid 3NT. >From South's point of view, won't 3S confirm a strong Ghestem hand with longer/stronger spades (BTW, won't 4C confirm a strong Ghestem hand too?). Say: AKxxxx AKxxxx x x or AKJTx AJxxx Kx A, but not much weaker. In that case, south has two working queens, support for both suits, and a side ace. Depending on the club control, it might be a grand! He bids 4D to find out the club control, and north confirms it with 5C, so south jumps to 6S. The cheapest way out is 7C doubled: 800 EW. I don't like the idea of automatically adjust Ghestem errors, but when a Ghestem error occurs, the offending side will often have a hard time proving they're able to stop below slam (1 ace missing) or 5-of-a-suit (2 aces missing). If they have to correct to a lower ranked suit, like this case, they might end up one level higher. Disclaimer: I'm not a director (but would like to become one). Sjoerd Schreuder From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 23:35:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:35:33 +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 XAA22368 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:35:26 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob (dialup-027.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.219]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA97119 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:34:49 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <002301be8d8e$4ff23b60$db307dc2@tsvecfob> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Re: Ghestem!!! Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:36:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01BE8D96.B03DBF00" 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_0020_01BE8D96.B03DBF00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >=20 > Only one problem to be considered: UI resulting from the alert and > suggesting IMO the 4C bid chosen. I think there are LA (3S for = example) and > I think there could have been some more rounds of bidding to end with = 5C. I > should vote for an assigned score of 300 EW to both sides. Brilliant answer! =20 North has UI from the Alert and yet can't pass 3H - but 3S is certainly = an LA over 4C leading to 5C or 5S and 300 EW to both sides. =20 Regards, Fearghal. =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BE8D96.B03DBF00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote:
>
>  Only one problem = to be=20 considered: UI resulting from the alert and
> suggesting IMO the = 4C bid=20 chosen. I think there are LA (3S for example) and
> I think there = could=20 have been some more rounds of bidding to end with 5C. I
> should = vote for=20 an assigned score of 300 EW to both sides.
 
 
Brilliant answer!
 
North has UI from the Alert and yet = can't pass=20 3H - but 3S is certainly an LA over 4C leading to 5C or 5S and 300 EW to = both=20 sides.
 
Regards,
Fearghal.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BE8D96.B03DBF00-- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 23 23:59:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:59:46 +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 XAA22451 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:59:40 +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 10afcx-0006QQ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:04:21 +0000 Message-ID: <9yyCrCCa3EI3EwB2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:39:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is your judgement? References: <199904230328.XAA26928@primus.ac.net> In-Reply-To: <199904230328.XAA26928@primus.ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >> This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >>teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > >Why is this info included? Isn't it completely irrelevent? Based on this >and the other post with what looks like from the same event, it looks like >you had some cranky customers that are beginning to try my patience! It was primarily included for interest. If we make all posts here as dry as dust then some people, I hope a majority, will find them more difficult to read and lose interest. Famously, our longest thread [possibly now overtaken] came from Nhinsky Novgorod, a fact that does not *matter*, but adds humanity to the affair. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 03:01:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 03:01:20 +1000 Received: from gw-nl3.philips.com (gw-nl3.philips.com [192.68.44.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25308 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 03:01:14 +1000 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl3.philips.com with ESMTP id TAA01561; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:01:08 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from Con.Holzscherer@ehv.sc.philips.com) Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl3.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma001559; Fri, 23 Apr 99 19:01:08 +0200 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.6.10-1.2.2m-970826) with ESMTP id TAA06603; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:01:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ehv.sc.philips.com (sydney.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.213]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id TAA27873; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:01:04 +0200 (METDST) Message-ID: <3720A750.8E171F16@ehv.sc.philips.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:01:04 +0200 From: Con Holzscherer Organization: Systems Laboratory Eindhoven (PS-SLE) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/820) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: "J.C.Lohmann" Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! References: <372067CC.624B8E65@sron.rug.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk J.C.Lohmann wrote: > The Dutch National Authority for appeals has made > jurisprudence for 'mistakes' with Ghestem. > Mistakes should be automatically punished (or an adjusted > score should be assigned), according to this jurisprudence. This is NOT true. First: The jurisprudence only applies in cases where the opponent's bidding is made completely impossible by the mistake. E.g. if EW could possibly make 4 hearts which they can not reach anymore because N bids 3 clubs (showing hearts and spades) with a club suit. Mistakes that do not inconvenience the opponents in this way (like the case that started this thread!) are not treated by the DNA significantly differently from the rest of the world. Second: There never is 'automatic punishment'. Always the mistake must have damaged the opponents. Third: Like always, opponents of a mistaker have to keep on playing bridge as the saying goes. If they clearly could and should have handled the mistake in a way to get a good result, they are not indemnified, possibly resulting in a split score. Please do not spread this kind of rumors without having any proof. > That's why directors in the Netherlands will seek for > reasons to compensate the unoffending side. This is not linked to the DNA's jurisprudence. Directors are instructed to follow the Laws (surprise!) and receive additional instructions of the so-called WEKO. If directors have a tendency to be overly harsh to Ghestem-offenders this might be caused by the instructions they receive. > Some (national) directors believe that this jurisprudence > is in conflict with the Law (I am). I don't and so do all the other members of the DNA. There is one point however that we must concede that the law is used in a way possibly not intended. In the case that people can really show by notarized system notes, that the bid was a mistake and the mismatching explanantion correct, the DNA has been known to use L74B1 to base a decision on. > If 3H promised club support, it should have been alerted. No. That someone who could not bid anything previously, opposite an overcall will only bid a new suit with tolerance for partner's suit is 'general bridge knowledge' or even 'elementary logic' and not a specific agreement to be alerted. > Conclusion: IMO there was an infraction. EW were damaged. As a > director I would choose for 3H doubled, minus 4 for both sides. I disagree with this, like nearly all other contributors to this thread. -- Con Holzscherer Systems Laboratory Eindhoven, Philips Semiconductors B.V. Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 05:07:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:07:18 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (q.inter.net.il [192.116.192.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA25703 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:07:09 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.185]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id WAA13635; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:06:50 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3720C501.FB1A9C53@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:07:45 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: blml Subject: Re: Divinity help us please (was:"Poster child" for ACs) References: <9904061416.aa04381@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk During these holly days for all the religions , I try to get a most powerful help , to guide our actions as TDs and ACs members , when dealing with the UI and LA troubles. I tried many times to "squeeze" an answer from the WBFLC if there can be UI if there was not irregularity or "bad manners/conduct" , but very unsuccessfully . My personal opinion is that there must be an official guide for laws' implementation for different levels of tournaments (or any SO decisions) how to deal with this subjects very specifically. If we want bridge as a popular sport or hobby WE MUST DO IT . Maybe many of my colleagues will get angry or furious or...reading the following sentences : 1.I can tell you that in almost all clubs , the TD rules -these items- accordingly to the commercial or social aims of the clubs. The trouble is that when a lot of players arrive to national level tournaments they don't understand why are they "screwed" when think or hesitate. 2.At national levels , there are some TDs who decide accordingly to the name of the contestant , not strictly accordingly to the law !!! YE , YE you all know it ....... 3.And for what I call neutral point of view : I don't think that "thinking" is a crime , in spite of my intimate knowledge that when my partner thinks too much it will go wrong ... So - if we want this game to be popular and enjoyable and pleasant and sporting too - I suggest to try to find the way to establish the "divine" guidelines , the way I tried to lead to , or in any other real right way . Btw , I am sure that members of WBFLC and all others who dealt with this item are more experienced than I am , but sometimes the Columbus' egg solution can "push the cart out of the mud" ; of course ...if the carter is really interested..!!!!! Happy Easter , Passover , Bayram ,....... Dany Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Jan Kamras wrote: > > > 2) Even if the hesitation often is "innocent", *some* of the time it > > will be for the "expected" reason. > > Well, not when my wife is playing. You have to have a certain level > of experience and understanding of the game to be able to hesitate for > the "expected" reason, and my wife isn't there yet. > > None of this applies to Adam's actual case, though. Certainly, if > Chris' partner has 200 MP's, she's been playing enough to be able to > have problems like "should I super-accept a transfer or not?" I'll > acknowledge that the examples I included are rather extreme cases that > might warrant applying the Laws in a different way than usual. > > Also, I don't mean to demean my wife at all---actually, I appreciate > that she went to some trouble to try to learn a little about my main > hobby. (I don't expect her to progress much further with it, though, > at least not for another 18 years until the kids are off in college.) > > -- the other Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 07:24:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 07:24:54 +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 HAA26141 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 07:24:48 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA03727 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001b01be8dcf$b34765a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com><19990421150957.82333.qmail@hotmail.com><371E0A35.88150450@emtex.com> <3.0.5.32.19990422114633.00846e60@maine.rr.com> <004601be8cee$e832c8e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <37201BCF.FB3A7A6D@idt.net> Subject: Re: Full disclosure Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:23:51 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Irwin J Kostal > I'm a little confused by some of this. Am I REQUIRED to choose one or > the other style of defense? Many people use varying conventions in > competitive situations, Hamilton Vs Weak NT, but DONT Vs Strong NT being > very common in Southern California. I'm sure there are others, as well. > With one partner I have agreed to play Fishbein vs Light pre-empts, and > takeout doubles vs "normal" pre-empts? Now the Opps have no way out. > They pick their style, and I pick a defense. Is there something wrong > with this approach? > No. Your system is to play different pre-established defenses against various types of notrump openings, nothing wrong with that. The convention card even makes provision for it. You just can't change that system during a session, as, for instance, if DONT has not worked well vs strong 1NT openings, without the DIC's permission. Against conventional or preemptive bids you can vary your defenses at will, evidently, while the opponents cannot change the nature of their conventions or preemptive bids to offset your defensive moves. Suppose I were to say to partner, halfway through a session, "Let's not play negative doubles against weak jump overcalls this round, since the opponents have a very loose jump overcall philosophy." That's okay, and the opponents cannot then legally tighten up their jump overcalls, although they probably would. This is a confusing subject and I hope I have it right. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 07:44:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 07:44:57 +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 HAA26177 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 07:44:51 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA10478 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:44:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002c01be8dd2$80dd7c00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: What is your judgement? Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:37:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive > player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original > double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, > teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > Result stands. While the UI suggests that bidding would be more successful than passing, there is no LA to bidding 2H, especially given the partnership agreement on takeout doubles. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 08:09:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:09:20 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA26220 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:09:15 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA14592 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002d01be8dd5$e92c5620$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:09:04 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > > This is a little tricky, and the correct ruling in England/Wales may > be different from the correct ruling elsewhere because of our > regulations. > > B19 A63 W N E S > S/E-W 5 > 965 P > T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H > AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP > KQT8 73 > Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 > Q83 > AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked > T96 > > At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C was > Ghestem showing the majors. The TD was called then. There was a > suggestion the 4C was slow, but it was agreed by three of the players it > was not, so that was accepted by the fourth player. > > The TD was recalled at the end of the hand. He asked North why he had > bid 4C, and North explained that with a singleton club 4C is obvious. > He asked South why he passed 4C: South explained that they had had a > discussion a month previously as to whether to abandon Ghestem or not, > and he was not completely certain of the outcome. North agreed they did > play Ghestem but he had forgotten. It was shown as Ghestem on both CCs. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, > teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > The ACBL AC has adopted a policy of rarely allowing a "commonsense" correction after convention disruption, or to listen to "We had at one time changed...." arguments. In fact, some AC members have stated that a "correction" should not be allowed in any case, which seems a bit extreme. South had no UI, if it is agreed that there was no hesitation. He has taken a chance by passing 4C, since North could be cue bidding with a big 6=6=1=0 hand. That's okay, no infraction. However, North does have UI, and may not take advantage of it. If his natural jump overcalls are normally this strong, I assume that 3H is forcing (if not, it must be passed). If so, there is an LA to the 4C bid suggested by the UI: a 3S probe for a notrump contract, which would lead to trouble. I don't know what the most unfavorable result at all probable would then be for N/S, perhaps 6C doubled. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 08:38:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:38:26 +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 IAA26286 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:38:20 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18854 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:38:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004e01be8dd9$f964b920$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <00ed01be8d1e$e2672b60$e5428ad0@wxsms.com> Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:38:11 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Nathan wrote: > At the bridge club last night, I was called to the table to rule on a "failure to alert." It seems the "offender" had bid one no-trump bypassing a four card major. > The .complainers said he did this with some regularity and that his partner should have alerted this. > I am not sure if there is any such requirement. > The "offender" played one no making three while the rest of the field was in three hearts making or four hearts down one. The sequence of bidding was: pass pass 1 club pass 1NT pass pass pass > What is the proper ruling? I adjusted the score to four hearts down one but suggested that if he wished he could appeal to a committee. He did, and the committe revised > the score to three hearts making. The ACBL Alert Procedure requires an Alert for any notrump response to 1C or 1D if a major is frequently. I don't know what they mean by "frequently," but evidently this pair does it enough to require the Alert. This rule applies to 2NT and 3NT responses as well as 1NT responses. But were the opponents damaged? We would have to see all four hands to know whether this is so. If there was no damage, the failure to Alert (which is misinformation, MI) does not call for a score adjustment. Some would say it calls for a Procedural Penalty (PP), but I don't believe that PPs should be assessed because TDs don't think the MI Laws are sufficiently severe. A light lecture would do, and if the pair continue failing to Alert when they should, then a PP would be appropriate (for disobeying TD instructions, per L90B8). Note that the fact that the 1NT contract resulted in a good result does not in itself constitute damage. Damage would have to come as a result of a defense that went wrong because of the MI, or from an opponent's getting doubled in a major suit reopening bid that was made on the supposition that responder did not have a major, something like that. The ACBL should simplify its bypass regulations, as I have requested by e-mail to Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief TD and secretary for the groups who are concerned with such regulations. In addition to Alerting notrump responses to a minor that frequently bypass a major, here are some more bypass rules: -- Bypassing four spades to bid 1NT in response to 1H, no Alert -- 1NT rebid by opener that may bypass a major, Alert -- 2C rebid by a 1C opener (e.g., 1C=1D=2C) that may bypass a major, no Alert -- 2NT or 3NT rebid by opener that may bypass a major, no Alert -- 1H or 1S response to 1C that may bypass four or more diamonds, no Alert It's no wonder that most people, even TDs, don't know these rules in detail. If you want a better opinion about the TD and AC actions, we would have to see all four hands, with vulnerability and dealer noted. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 08:56:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:56:30 +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 IAA26321 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:56:24 +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 SAA14946 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 18:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 18:56:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904232256.SAA28749@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <002d01be8dd5$e92c5620$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: >> >> B19 A63 W N E S >> S/E-W 5 >> 965 P >> T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H >> AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP >> KQT8 73 >> Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 >> Q83 >> AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked >> T96 >> At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C >> was Ghestem showing the majors. > The ACBL AC has adopted a policy of rarely allowing a "commonsense" > correction after convention disruption, or to listen to "We had at one > time changed...." arguments. In fact, some AC members have stated that a > "correction" should not be allowed in any case, which seems a bit > extreme. The rule should be that the correction is allowed if the bid would be impossible over the correct covention. For example, if you bid 4C intended as Gerber, have it alerted as a splinter, and partner bids 4NT when you have two aces in your own hand, you have AI that your bid was misunderstood. Here, 3H looks like a reasonable game try over North's (intermediate jump?) overcall, and thus North is obliged to respond as such, with the logical alternative 3S. > However, North does have UI, and may not take advantage of it. If his > natural jump overcalls are normally this strong, I assume that 3H is > forcing (if not, it must be passed). If so, there is an LA to the 4C > bid suggested by the UI: a 3S probe for a notrump contract, which would > lead to trouble. I don't know what the most unfavorable result at all > probable would then be for N/S, perhaps 6C doubled. I don't know Ghestem, so I don't know what strength 3S would show; if it suggests ununequal length, South would either pass (if 3S is weak) or, more likely, raise to 4S. North now knows something has gone wrong (South cannot have a slam try), and can try to extricate himself; I think he can bid 5S and expect South to figure out what has gone wrong and pass, so I might allow 5Cx down two -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 09:08:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:08:07 +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 JAA26360 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:08:01 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA24409 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008e01be8dde$1dd97800$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <9904221806.aa00531@flash.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:03:08 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Adam Beneschan > > > At the bridge club last night, I was called to the table to rule on a > > "failure to alert." It seems the "offender" had bid one no-trump > > bypassing a four card major. The complainers said he did this with some > > regularity and that his partner should have alerted this. > > > > I am not sure if there is any such requirement. > > Yes, in the ACBL. The Alert chart has an item "1NT/1C or 1D not > denying four spades or four hearts" in the Alertable column. You are reading from the Alert Chart that is appended to the 14-page Alert Procedure, supposedly providing a handy summary. The Chart has several errors, contradicting what is in the preceding text , and this is one of them. When there is a contradiction, the text governs. However, the text itself contradicts itself on this point! Page 5: "if you frequently respond 1NT or 2NT to a 1C or 1D opening bid when you have two or more four-card major suits, the 1NT and 2NT bids *do require* an Alert." Page 11: "1C-Pass-1NT or 1D-Pass-1NT: Not Alertable if it...denies a four card major." This same contradiction occurred in the previous version of the ACBL Alert Procedure, the one that was published in *The Bridge Bulletin* a few years ago. Page 4 and page 8, if anyone is interested. When doing my recap of the Alert Procedure (downloadable from David Stevenson's website), I had to make a decision. The one I made, and the recap has been approved by Gary Blaiss, was that "frequently" is the right criterion. Besides, page 11's wording (contrary to the Alert Chart version) does not say what is Alertable, only what is not Alertable. It really doesn't contradict page 5, strictly speaking. If I remember, Marshall Miles made a strong protest against rigid bypass Alert regulations, in a letter to the editor of *The Bridge Bulletin* a few years ago. I am guessing that the change from "denies a major" to "frequently bypasses a major" was a result of that letter, but who knows? (snip of good words from Adam) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 09:35:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:35:02 +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 JAA26436 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:34:56 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa14536; 23 Apr 99 16:34 PDT To: bridge-laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:03:08 PDT." <008e01be8dde$1dd97800$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:34:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904231634.aa14536@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Page 5: "if you frequently respond 1NT or 2NT to a 1C or 1D opening bid > when you have two or more four-card major suits, the 1NT and 2NT bids > *do require* an Alert." Does it really say "two or more four-card major suits"? I suppose I might decide to bid 1NT if I had three four-card majors. Especially if I had a singleton in the other major. But this situation doesn't seem to come up too often. :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 10:50:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:50:37 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA26590 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:50:31 +1000 Received: from p19s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.26] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10aqeG-00047w-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 01:50:25 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 01:51:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8dec$a1266980$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 Q32 All Vul, Dealer East 542 J943 KT9 JT965 AK74 98 KQ763 AK6 T 653 Q72 8 AJT Q8752 AJ84 E S W N 1H 2D ....P P 2H P P 3D P P Dbl P 3H Table result 3H making 9 tricks. E/W140. E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors.negative doubles. South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are weaker players but not beginners. N/S claim damage. They claim that the 2H bid was suspect after the hesitant pass by W. and that the 3H bid was even moreso. East said that she had noticed the hesitation but thought her 2H bid was an underbid. East did not feel that she could pass the double of 3D with her singleton. Your opinions please? From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 10:49:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:49:51 +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 KAA26570 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:49:45 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08314 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b801be8dec$559b6c40$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <9904231634.aa14536@flash.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:49:29 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Benaschen wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Page 5: "if you frequently respond 1NT or 2NT to a 1C or 1D opening bid > > when you have two or more four-card major suits, the 1NT and 2NT bids > > *do require* an Alert." > > Does it really say "two or more four-card major suits"? I suppose I > might decide to bid 1NT if I had three four-card majors. Especially > if I had a singleton in the other major. But this situation doesn't > seem to come up too often. > Okay, you got me. It says "one or two four-card major suits." Thanks for the correction. My excuse is that I was in a hurry, catching up after a day of computer down-time. Trying to find out why my scanner wasn't working, I had removed the cover to my PC. After checking the scanner (loose connection), computer on but cover off, I replaced the cover with some difficulty, with the computer still running. Pow! Everything went dark, no power, no nothing. Loose electrical plug? No. Called partner Bill Bartley, computer expert: "It's a power supply problem, don't worry. You didn't zap the motherboard or anything like that." Right he was, as I found this morning. The clips on the cover had hooked on a power supply connection, separating it. Rejoined the connection and experienced the "PC rush," as Bill calls the experience of getting a PC going after encountering what seems to be a serious problem. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 13:45:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA27056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 13:45:20 +1000 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA27051 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 13:45:12 +1000 Received: from hdavis (209-122-216-183.s183.tnt3.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.216.183]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA22425 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:45:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001201be8e04$d2d5e880$b7d87ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01be8dec$a1266980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 23:44:51 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Friday, April 23, 1999 8:51 PM Subject: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. > > > > Q32 All Vul, > Dealer East > 542 > J943 > KT9 > JT965 AK74 > 98 KQ763 > AK6 T > 653 Q72 > 8 > AJT > Q8752 > AJ84 > > > E S W N > 1H 2D ....P P > 2H P P 3D > P P Dbl P > 3H > > Table result 3H making 9 tricks. E/W140. > > E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors.negative doubles. > > South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are weaker > players but not beginners. > > N/S claim damage. They claim that the 2H bid was suspect after the hesitant > pass by W. and that the 3H bid was even moreso. > East said that she had noticed the hesitation but thought her 2H bid was an > underbid. East did not feel that she could pass the double of 3D with her > singleton. > > Your opinions please? > > I adjust the auction, but the score remains the same. I concur that 2H is suspect, but balancing certainly is not, so I change 2H to a double. West now bids 2S, N bids 3D, E bids 3S which is passed out. Final contract 3S, N leads partner's suit allowing a club pitch, I don't allow W to find the spade Q, final score E/W 140 but in spades, not hearts. I allow W enough judgement to devalue the AK of diamonds on this auction and stay out of game. As far as 3H being suspect, it is, but N/S were not damaged (actually they were rescued). If N/S really want to play 3Dx, W leads a heart, E/W take 1S, 1H and 3D for a score of E/W 200. (I let S find the CQ based on the auction). I'm not sure why the word "ethical" is in the header, unless the suggestion is that E was deliberately taking advantage of the hesitation. I would be very cautious in making that accusation, particularly if E is not a strong player. Even so, there are some very strong players who do not understand their obligations after a hesitation by partner. Even if she did, there is no reason to assume that because we see the Logical Alternatives when it is posed to us as a problem, that E must have seen them all in the auction. This is a UI problem, but not an ethical one, IMO. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 19:10:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 19:10:49 +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 TAA27348 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 19:10:43 +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 AAA06506 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 00:08:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 007PH02X Sat, 24 Apr 99 00:09:08 Message-ID: <9904240009.007PH02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 99 00:09:08 Subject: ETHICAL CHOIC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The most likely meanings of West's pause include [a] desire to make a negative double but can't handle if partner bids the 'wrong suit' and/or [2] has the potential values to penalize the overcall and/or [3] has support which is not biddable. The effect of the huddle is that it practically assures opener that whether they rebid their suit or make a reopening double, it will be successful. The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. The huddle suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the call be double and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. 2H was selected instead of double so 2H was an infraction. For a player that does not make the required systemic bid, pass is a LA. Adjust the score to 2D=8 tricks both directions. Roger Pewick B> Q32 All B>Vul, Dealer East B> 542 B> J943 B> KT9 B>JT965 AK74 B>98 KQ763 B>AK6 T B>653 Q72 B> 8 B> AJT B> Q8752 B> AJ84 B>E S W N B>1H 2D ....P P B>2H P P 3D B> P P Dbl P B>3H B>Table result 3H making 9 tricks. E/W140. B>E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors.negative doubles. B>South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are weaker B>players but not beginners. B>N/S claim damage. They claim that the 2H bid was suspect after the B>hesitant pass by W. and that the 3H bid was even moreso. B>East said that she had noticed the hesitation but thought her 2H bid was B>an underbid. East did not feel that she could pass the double of 3D with B>her singleton. B>Your opinions please? B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 19:37:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 19:37:38 +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 TAA27401 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 19:37:32 +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 GAA02527 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 06:27:12 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 GAA24516 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 06:25:23 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990424082746.007dc2f0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:27:46 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. In-Reply-To: <01be8dec$a1266980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:51 24/04/99 +0100, Anne Jones wrote: > > > > Q32 All Vul, >Dealer East > 542 > J943 > KT9 >JT965 AK74 >98 KQ763 >AK6 T >653 Q72 > 8 > AJT > Q8752 > AJ84 > > > E S W N > 1H 2D ....P P > 2H P P 3D > P P Dbl P > 3H > >Table result 3H making 9 tricks. E/W140. > >E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors.negative doubles. > >South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are weaker >players but not beginners. > >N/S claim damage. They claim that the 2H bid was suspect after the hesitant >pass by W. and that the 3H bid was even moreso. >East said that she had noticed the hesitation but thought her 2H bid was an >underbid. East did not feel that she could pass the double of 3D with her >singleton. > >Your opinions please? > Only one point to deal with: UI to East, due to West's hesitation. UI suggests to West a reopening double, but I would have thought there was no LA to this double ... until East found one. So 2H stands. On the next turn, same UI to East which suggests passing West's double of 3D. As East didn't choose the bid suggested by UI (Pass, leading to an easy 200 for his side) but a more unfortunate one, it's not even necessary to determine whether ther was LA. Result stands. I can understand NS claim damage about 2H, but for 3H?? 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 Apr 24 23:51:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:51:38 +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 XAA27989 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:51:32 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA28684 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 14:50:56 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 24 Apr 99 14:50 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! 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: <002d01be8dd5$e92c5620$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > However, North does have UI, and may not take advantage of it. If his > natural jump overcalls are normally this strong, I assume that 3H is > forcing (if not, it must be passed). If so, there is an LA to the 4C > bid suggested by the UI: a 3S probe for a notrump contract, which would > lead to trouble. I don't know what the most unfavorable result at all > probable would then be for N/S, perhaps 6C doubled. Since when can passed hands make forcing bids opposite a strictly limited bid? Why on earth would North consider 3NT a likely contract opposite a passed hand. OK it can make if partner has a "perfect 10" (2 red aces + CQ) but he will bid 3N over 3S on all sorts of less suitable hands. To me there are only 2 possible meanings to 3H (behind screens). a) Partner thinks we are playing Ghestem b) Partner has a partial club fit with good hearts and is suggesting alternative places to play In either case 4C is the only logical bid. Opposite an unpassed hand there are many more possibilities. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 24 23:56:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:56:39 +1000 Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28036 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:56:32 +1000 Received: from hdavis (209-122-252-124.s378.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.252.124]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id JAA06361 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:56:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001a01be8e5a$3d3a8a00$7cfc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "blml" References: <9904240009.007PH02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Subject: Re: ETHICAL CHOIC Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:56:22 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: blml Sent: Saturday, April 24, 1999 12:09 AM Subject: ETHICAL CHOIC [snip] > > The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. Pass? I must admit that was an option that never occurred to me. IMO not a logical alternative. >The huddle > suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the call be double > and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. 2H was selected instead of > double so 2H was an infraction. For a player that does not make the > required systemic bid, pass is a LA. Adjust the score to 2D=8 tricks both > directions. > > Roger Pewick > > > > > B> Q32 All > B>Vul, Dealer East > B> 542 > B> J943 > B> KT9 > B>JT965 AK74 > B>98 KQ763 > B>AK6 T > B>653 Q72 > B> 8 > B> AJT > B> Q8752 > B> AJ84 > > > B>E S W N > B>1H 2D ....P P > B>2H P P 3D > B> P P Dbl P > B>3H > > B>Table result 3H making 9 tricks. E/W140. > > B>E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors.negative doubles. [snip] Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 00:11:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:11:06 +1000 Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28401 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:10:49 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3706) by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qIPJa25233; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <82c677f0.24532ab1@aol.com> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:09:53 EDT Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 216 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is the gester US branch in Tampa, Florida. In this example South has used information available to him but not disclosed to opponents. There is a failure to provide full disclosure. When asked he should have told opponents about his basis for passing. But what damage to opponents? I do not think they could gain by entering the auction so the most they can ask for is for West to have his pass back and be allowed to double. But in fact despite the alert they have shown no interest in doing so and have only asked when the auction is over. Having asked earlier and given correct info then would they double? As for North's action, I cannot think of a South hand that would pass originally and then want to remove a natural 3C to 3H. My impulsive reaction here is not to disturb the score, but we (Kojak is sitting beside me) will be willing to learn. ++ Grattan Endicott ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 00:11:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:11:12 +1000 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28431 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:10:53 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3706) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id dIMVa19330; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:10:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:10:00 EDT Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements To: msd@mindspring.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 216 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The US Gester again! We, K and I, do not know what this Director and this AC are doing. We see no case whatsoever for a score adjustment in Hearts played by the 1NT bidder at any level. The Director and the AC cannot require the One Heart bid to be made. The player has bid One NT. The failure to disclose the tendency to bypass the major has to be disclosed, following whatever method the applicable regulations require. There can be a procedural penalty for not doing so, or even imaginably there could be score adjustment when the absence of disclosure damages the action of opponents (and it seems here that we need to know what damage is claimed. If the other side has a Heart contract surely we must accept the judgment of the AC.) ++ Grattan Endicott ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 00:11:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:11:33 +1000 Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28583 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:11:16 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3706) by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vNJa008200; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:10:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5c48eef0.24532aba@aol.com> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 10:10:02 EDT Subject: Re: Split/Weighted To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 216 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/22/99 6:57:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > > Especially given the fact that L12C3 contains no standards of > implementation. > ++++ When you manufacture a tool you expect the workman to use it skilfully. ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 02:14:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:14:45 +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 CAA00991 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:14:37 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA09426 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001501be8e6d$88567720$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:14:22 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Time West-Meads wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > However, North does have UI, and may not take advantage of it. If his > > natural jump overcalls are normally this strong, I assume that 3H is > > forcing (if not, it must be passed). If so, there is an LA to the 4C > > bid suggested by the UI: a 3S probe for a notrump contract, which would > > lead to trouble. I don't know what the most unfavorable result at all > > probable would then be for N/S, perhaps 6C doubled. > > Since when can passed hands make forcing bids opposite a strictly limited > bid? Since 1935: P-P-1D-P; 1S-P-3D-P; 3S is forcing, even though opener is limited. In the Ghestem case, if the 3C bid represents an intermediate jump overcall, which it apparently does (wish we were told about this), I don't think anyone (with one exception, evidently) would play a major suit takeout as not forcing. If 3H is not forcing, then it is a "drop dead" bid that logically could be passed. > Why on earth would North consider 3NT a likely contract opposite a > passed hand. OK it can make if partner has a "perfect 10" (2 red aces + > CQ) but he will bid 3N over 3S on all sorts of less suitable hands. All North needs from South is enough in hearts and diamonds to prevent five losers in those suits, and two tricks outside of clubs. If a club finesse is necessary, it is not unreasonable to hope that the opening bidder has the queen of clubs. Not too much to expect from a passed hand. Maybe 3S is not a good bid, but it looks to me like an LA to the 4C bid suggested by the UI. > To me there are only 2 possible meanings to 3H (behind screens). > a) Partner thinks we are playing Ghestem One reason for being very slow to accept "I could figure out that partner forgot" statements is the not unlikely possibility that the amnesiac transmitted discomfort, perhaps subliminally, that was picked up, perhaps unconsciously, by his/her partner. Besides, 4C surely has some forcing meaning when using Ghestem. Convention developers don't leave room for undefined bids, do they? ACs must be highly skeptical in regard to such statements as "Although 4C is forcing, showing a strong hand and a void, I took a chance and passed." > b) Partner has a partial club fit with good hearts and is suggesting > alternative places to play Possibly Including 3NT, if North has spades stopped. So now 3H is forcing? > In either case 4C is the only logical bid. I disagree. > Opposite an unpassed hand > there are many more possibilities. > I agree. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 02:37:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:37:13 +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 CAA01076 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:37:05 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA17468 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002f01be8e70$ac848580$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 09:36:54 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Someone wrote: > The US Gester again! We, K and I, do not know what this Director and this > AC are doing. We see no case whatsoever for a score adjustment in Hearts > played by the 1NT bidder at any level. The Director and the AC cannot require > the One Heart bid to be made. The player has bid One NT. The failure to > disclose the tendency to bypass the major has to be disclosed, following > whatever method the applicable regulations require. There can be a procedural > penalty for not doing so... We should make up our minds whether *all* failures to Alert that do not cause damage should get a PP. If you assess a PP only when the TD is called to resolve possible damage, then the PP is actually for inconveniencing the TD, not for the failure to Alert. If that is reasonable, the policy should be applied uniformly, not selectively. I called the TD for Alert and CC infractions when playing against Mark Lair, Bobby Wolff, Bobby Goldman, and other top players during the past year. How many PPs do you think were assessed? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com AKA Cato From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 02:45:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:03 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01122 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:44:55 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10b5Xo-000Fk9-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 16:44:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 12:51:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: List of important beings References: <3.0.32.19990423093624.009bcc40@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn writes >> If one of *my* friends out there could send *ME* a copy of the most >>recent list [to Quango ] I will send you a >>virtual fish as a reward. >My dibs on that fish ! Done. I don't think you get the fish! Your emails did not contain the list [neither of them] !!!!!! OK, you were just late. Meow. The fishes: __ Craig Senior >|<<__>'> Adam Beneschan >|<<__>'> Joep Lohmann >|<<__>'> Anne Jones >|<<__>'> Dany Haimovici >|<<__>'> Herman De Wael >|<<__>'> A-tish-oo Anton Witzen >|<<__>'> Markus Buchhorn >|<<__>'> I am pleased to see several sensible people are keeping THE list. I shall instruct Nanki Poo and David to be more careful in future. Purrs and headbutts Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 02:45:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:06 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01121 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:44:55 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10b5Xo-000Fk7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 16:44:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 12:44:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. References: <01be8dec$a1266980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be8dec$a1266980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: E/ALL Q32 W N E S 542 J943 1H 2D JT965 KT9 AK74 ..P P 2H P 98 KQ763 P 3D P P AK6 T Dbl P 3H AP 653 8 Q72 AJT 3H= NS-140 Q8752 AJ84 E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors. Negative doubles. South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are weaker players but not beginners. N/S claim damage. They claim that the 2H bid was suspect after the hesitant pass by W and that the 3H bid was even more so. East said that she had noticed the hesitation but thought her 2H bid was an underbid. East did not feel that she could pass the double of 3D with her singleton. Your opinions please? -------------- A good example of how to approach a simple UI problem. Was there UI? Yes, West paused before passing. Were there LAs to East's bid of 2H? Yes, double is clearly an LA, being a call that 99% of the player's peers would find [!!!]. Importantly, pass is not an LA in the modern game. 2H might not be considered an LA, but we have discussed this at length: we concluded that it does not matter, though there were three different ways of deciding the legal basis for this. Was 2H suggested over double by the UI? No, a pause over an overcall tends to show length in diamonds, not guaranteed, but certainly frequent: this would suggest double rather than 2H since partner might wish to pass this. So 2H was not suggested over double by the UI and no adjustment is suitable. Were there LAs to East's bid of 3H? Yes, pass is clearly an LA being a call that 80% of the player's peers would find [!!!]. As before, 3H might not be considered an LA! Was 3H suggested over pass by the UI? No, a pause over an overcall tends to show length in diamonds, not guaranteed, but certainly frequent: this would suggest passing the double rather than 3H since it might be going a long way off and there is no guarantee that 3H is making. So 3H was not suggested over pass by the UI and no adjustment is suitable. East's bidding may be crazy, but it was not illegal! -------------- Hirsch Davis wrote: >I adjust the auction, but the score remains the same. > >I concur that 2H is suspect, but balancing certainly is not, so I change 2H >to a double. 2H may be a number of things, but you cannot change 2H to a double because double is the call suggested by the UI. [s] >As far as 3H being suspect, it is, but N/S were not damaged (actually they >were rescued). It may be suspect, but it is not suggested by the UI. You should not adjust dubious actions after UI *unless* they are suggested by the UI. [s] >I'm not sure why the word "ethical" is in the header, unless the suggestion >is that E was deliberately taking advantage of the hesitation. I would be >very cautious in making that accusation, particularly if E is not a strong >player. Even so, there are some very strong players who do not understand >their obligations after a hesitation by partner. Even if she did, there is >no reason to assume that because we see the Logical Alternatives when it is >posed to us as a problem, that E must have seen them all in the auction. >This is a UI problem, but not an ethical one, IMO. Agreed. -------------- Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: >UI suggests to West a reopening double, but I would have thought there was >no LA to this double ... until East found one. So 2H stands. > On the next turn, same UI to East which suggests passing West's double of >3D. As East didn't choose the bid suggested by UI (Pass, leading to an easy >200 for his side) but a more unfortunate one, it's not even necessary to >determine whether ther was LA. Result stands. Agreed. -------------- It would be greatly appreciated if people would use their Reply-To functions when responding to posts *and* not change the Subject. People with good software have articles threaded, and some posts change threads if the linkage is suspect. If any of you have poor software, a friend of mine loves giving advice on what to get! He is Brian Meadows and he does understand bridge rulings! -------------- Roger wrote: >The most likely meanings of West's pause include [a] desire to make a >negative double but can't handle if partner bids the 'wrong suit' and/or [2] >has the potential values to penalize the overcall and/or [3] has support >which is not biddable. The effect of the huddle is that it practically >assures opener that whether they rebid their suit or make a reopening >double, it will be successful. > >The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. The huddle >suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the call be double >and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. 2H was selected instead of >double so 2H was an infraction. For a player that does not make the >required systemic bid, pass is a LA. Adjust the score to 2D=8 tricks both >directions. I do not see any logic behind the penultimate sentence. Either pass is an LA, or it isn't, and the player's actual choice does not affect this. In fact, I do not believe that pass is an LA, nor would I believe it to be an LA even in NAmerica. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 02:45:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:18 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01136 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:07 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10b5Xy-000Fk9-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 16:44:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 13:41:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ghestem!!!!! References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > This is a little tricky, and the correct ruling in England/Wales may >be different from the correct ruling elsewhere because of our >regulations. > > B19 A63 W N E S > S/E-W 5 > 965 P > T98 AKJ743 KJ52 1D 3C% P 3H > AKJ4 T9632 P 4C AP > KQT8 73 > Q5 Q74 82 Result: 4C-1, NS -50 > Q83 > AJ42 % = Alerted, not asked > T96 > > At the end of the auction East-West enquired and were told that 3C was >Ghestem showing the majors. The TD was called then. There was a >suggestion the 4C was slow, but it was agreed by three of the players it >was not, so that was accepted by the fourth player. > > The TD was recalled at the end of the hand. He asked North why he >had bid 4C, and North explained that with a singleton heart 4C is >obvious. He asked South why he passed 4C: South explained that they >had had a discussion a month previously as to whether to abandon >Ghestem or not, and he was not completely certain of the outcome. >North agreed they did play Ghestem but he had forgotten. It was shown >as Ghestem on both CCs. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. ============= Sorry about the obvious error in posting [corrected above]. I make quite a few because I read a number of newsgroups, and I often post too fast. ============= Linda Trent wrote: >> This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >>teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. >Don't understand why the above info is given - seems irrelevent. The >players are entitled to a Committee if they are fighting for last and >next-to-last. I don't think an AC should ever know the standings, but I >know one can usually work it out when you see who walks into the room... This is Europe, so I am asking about rulings, not appeals . Dry as dust posts are not easy to read, so I have added a bit to make it more human. If it is irrelevant, so be it, but I think it is nice [for example] that we know our longest BLML thread [now superseded I think] was from a claim in Nizhnski Novgorod [how do you spell the first word, Sergei?]. I make no suggestion the ruling depends on the situation. ============= Joep would adjust, accepting that passing 3H is an LA. However, he had no support, and I do not think it is. Personally, I play it as forcing, and I expect the pair concerned do. He also comments on the Dutch approach to Ghestem, corrected by others. In England, our L&EC considered special rules for Ghestem infractions at a recent meeting but turned the idea down. ============= Several people considered 3S an LA over 3H. It was not considered in our ruling, probably because everyone here plays 3S as showing a heart fit. It seems a reasonable ruling. Of course, you could then argue that partner, who passed 4C, would have gone back to 4C over 3S guessing a wheel had come off. ============= At the time, I was asked to rule, despite it being the other table of the match in which I was playing. In fact the same player had asked for a ruling as earlier. I considered there were no LAs to 4C [everyone agreed]. In England/Wales we control certain breaches of L40B by looking for fielding of misbids. Here, the pass of 4C appeared to allow for the possibility that 3C was not meant as Ghestem - since the player said so, that was easy to determine! Accordingly I ruled it as a Red Misbid, which gives A+/A- automatically, ie 3 imps to the offenders. However, since *I* had gone two off in 3H at the other table, we had already lost 6 imps so there was no adjustment! I felt a little unhappy at giving a ruling on a board when I had already acquired -200, but the other table *insisted* I should do so. Anyone who wishes to probe the method of adjusting might like to read Adjustments for fielding by Jesper Dybdal, Naerum, Denmark, and David Stevenson on my Lawspage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/psych3.htm The result? [Sorry Linda!] We drew the match 6-6. Without the first ruling [2H, in the other thread] we get 5 imps more but still draw 6-6. The second ruling did not alter the score. We think [but are not sure] that the result is that we are level on VPs, each with a score that would be 15 VPs clear most years, and we lose the split tie. Qnza! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 02:45:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:21 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01137 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:08 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10b5Xz-000Fk7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 16:44:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 14:20:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two cards visible References: <199904221629.MAA07330@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904221629.MAA07330@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >David will ask the player which card he intended, find out (if the >player is honest), and then will rule that whichever card is played, >the other is a major penalty card. John and I will not ask, and we >will tell the player that he may play the small one and leave the honor >as a major penalty card, or he may play the honor and leave the small >one as a minor penalty card. Do you see the difference? I know which >ruling I prefer, but obviously the language gives scope for >disagreement. Throughout this thread there seems to me to have been confusion caused by others misinterpreting my motives. I am a simple soul [!] and when I ask how we go about something, *all* I mean is that I want to know how to go about something. Yes, if I need to know something I shall ask, and usually judge the answer correctly, and please don't think I am naive enough to always be misled by someone lying, nor am I scared of lawsuits if my ruling judges a player to be mistaken [he will say "You have accused me of lying": I shall think "So?"]. All I want to know is how we should apply this Law. If two honours are played together, both visible, or any three cards, the result will always be one or more MPCs [major penalty cards]. Whatever view we take of the problem, if a player intends to play an honour, and a small card appears with it, then the honour would become an MPC if he chooses the small card, the small card would become an mPC [minor penalty card] otherwise. So our problem is solely when two small cards appear, or a small card and an honour when the player intends to play the small card. Furthermore, the norm is for players to know which card was intended. Not only does the player normally say something tactless, but anyway, the card on top will be the one he meant to play in 95+% of cases. I do not believe that I would get intent wrong if I asked him even if he is prepared to lie. However, I have never said what I would do in this case despite assumptions to the contrary: all I am asking is what is correct. It is my considered opinion that there is sufficient slack in the wording of L50B, plus the reference to two cards played simultaneously, that we should follow the way that is normally considered correct, namely that a small card will always become an mPC. This does not mean that I agree with Steve. Far from it. Either the question of intent is relevant, or it is not, and I think that whether a player has blurted something out [in Steve's view, that makes him a beginner: in my view that means he is one of 90% of bridge players!] should not affect it. It is my considered opinion that there is no need to consider the original intent. L58B does not, and L50B allows us to designate one small card as an mPC. >> partner switched to the nine of diamonds from 97 doubleton - but as he >> played the nine, the hitherto concealed deuce detached itself from the back >> of the nine and both cards landed exposed. It was clear to everyone what >> had happened. > >So it's obvious that the nine was intended? Then I think we all agree >on the ruling. In fact, you could argue that this is not a L58B case >at all: the 9 was played, and the 2 was accidentally exposed. If you >believe the latter (and here the TD certainly needs to determine the >facts), the 9 is played, and the 2 is dealt with under L50 (minor >penalty card). But if there's any doubt, I'd tend to rule L58B and let >the player decide what he wants to do. This is another can of worms! The normal way for two cards to be visible is the way described, and now Steve is suggesting this might not be a L58B problem! Fortunately Steve is wrong [Whew!]. Accidentally exposed cards by defenders are played, so once two cards are visible it is automatically a L58B case. >> If he had been given a correct and full explanation of his >> options (he wasn't), he would have designated the nine, although that would >> be systemically the wrong lead from 972. In that case, what am I authorized >> to know about partner's diamond holding? Since I held the 8 myself, must I >> play as though partner's lead is from a doubleton, or can I allow for the >> possibility of what actually happened? > >L50C says "information gained through seeing the penalty card" is UI. >I would interpret this as including the information that partner might >not have seen the card himself. In fact, this seems pretty clear. >Suppose no cards are exposed, but partner suddenly rearranges his hand >and says "Oops, I didn't see that card!" I think we all will agree >this is UI (a mannerism in L16A terms). So if I understand the >position, yes, you have to play partner for a doubleton, or perhaps a >singleton, or any other holding from which the nine would be the proper >lead. Or more accurately, you _may not_ play partner for any holding >from which the 9 would be systemically wrong unless there is no LA. All MPCs and mPCs provide UI to partner [L50C and L50D1], except that the fact of having to play them in particular circumstances is AI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 02:45:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA01167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:24 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA01156 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:14 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10b5Xy-000FkA-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 16:44:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 13:07:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is your judgement? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive >player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original >double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, >teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. Seven out of seven [one via a direct email] said there was no LA to 2H. Linda suggested there were cranky customers: there weren't: this was a match played in excellent spirit, and the only idiot was [*ahem*] the Director found by phone, who decided [without consideration or consultation] that pass was an LA to 2H. [Mike Amos: why did *you* not answer the phone? We eventually got **** ******] I trust he would be reversed on appeal. Thankyou, John, for saying that *even* I would allow this 2H. Nearly right. I, of course, was the player who *bid* 2H, and I considered the ethical ramifications before bidding but I did not feel pass was an LA. East, who asked for the ruling, and is a former EBU TD himself, has later admitted he thinks the ruling in his favour was wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 04:06:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 04:06:28 +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 EAA01311 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 04:06:19 +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 NAA12392 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 13:06:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0IFFT011 Sat, 24 Apr 99 13:07:05 Message-ID: <9904241307.0IFFT01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 99 13:07:05 Subject: ETHICAL CHOICES & L To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The evidence is compelling that east's motivation for bidding 2H was information that was unauthorized. East stated that they were unwilling to penalize 3D because they had only a stiff diamond. It is to be presumed that such a player would be even less willing to penalize 2D. Consider that east had UI suggesting that west was likely to pass a reopening double of 2D. This was the very outcome that east was unwilling to have. Was there a way to avoid that possibility? Yes, bid 2H so partner could not pass 2DX. This means that the UI demonstrably suggested 2H over double. There are a large number of deals consistent with the auction where 2H goes down 800. There are a larger number of deals where 2H goes down 200 or 500. The huddle made the 2H [and for that matter 3H] eminently less risky. A player willing to risk -800 by bidding 2H might think that a score of -110 [or -130] obtained by passing might be preferable. Imo, that would make Pass a LA and is the reason why I feel that the law requires the contract to be adjusted to 2D. Personally, the only call that I would make is Double. The reason is because my system [negative double agreement] requires it. There are other actions like pass or 2H that Might Work, but not as often as double. I would not consider a player that would bid 2H to be my peer, or the peer to anyone using negative doubles that would reopen with a double. Roger Pewick B>Anne Jones wrote: B>E/ALL Q32 W N E S B> 542 B> J943 1H 2D B>JT965 KT9 AK74 ..P P 2H P B>98 KQ763 P 3D P P B>AK6 T Dbl P 3H AP B>653 8 Q72 B> AJT 3H= NS-140 B> Q8752 B> AJ84 B>E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors. Negative doubles. B>South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are B>weaker players but not beginners. -s- B>Roger wrote: B>>The most likely meanings of West's pause include [a] desire to make a B>>negative double but can't handle if partner bids the 'wrong suit' B>and/or [2] >has the potential values to penalize the overcall and/or B>[3] has support >which is not biddable. The effect of the huddle is B>that it practically >assures opener that whether they rebid their suit B>or make a reopening >double, it will be successful. B>> B>>The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. The B>huddle >suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the B>call be double >and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. 2H B>was selected instead of >double so 2H was an infraction. For a player B>that does not make the >required systemic bid, pass is a LA. Adjust B>the score to 2D=8 tricks both >directions. B>I do not see any logic behind the penultimate sentence. Either pass B>is an LA, or it isn't, and the player's actual choice does not affect B>this. In fact, I do not believe that pass is an LA, nor would I believe B>it to be an LA even in NAmerica. B>-- B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 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 Sun Apr 25 04:18:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 04:18:22 +1000 Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01384 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 04:18:16 +1000 Received: from hdavis (209-122-254-119.s119.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.254.119]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id OAA27131 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 14:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000a01be8e7e$ccabfec0$77fe7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <01be8dec$a1266980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 14:18:05 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, April 24, 1999 7:44 AM Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. [snip] -------------- > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >I adjust the auction, but the score remains the same. > > > >I concur that 2H is suspect, but balancing certainly is not, so I change 2H > >to a double. > > 2H may be a number of things, but you cannot change 2H to a double > because double is the call suggested by the UI. > [snip] That will teach me to post late at night. I had a good long laugh at myself after seeing what I had written this morning. As an aside, my very first ruling at a Flight A level as a brand new director involved a similar situation. I got it right, and ruled no adjustment as the action taken was not suggested by the hesitation. As a new director at the time, I mentioned my ruling to the Chief Director (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty). He consulted with an expert player who was not in the same event, and they decided that since 75% of the players in the room would not have taken the action after the hesitation (this was a few years back), that the action would not be allowed (actually, there was *no* 75% action on that particular hand). So, I had the dubious honor of going back to the table and reversing my correct ruling (I wanted to work in that game again, which is normally well run). The end result was that Fred King, the player ruled against, wound up writing a letter to the Bridge World, with the (indefensible) refutation written by Steve Robinson, who came up with the ruling. The Bridge World thankfully rejected Robinson's argument. At least by the time it got to that point, nobody remembered that I was the table Director and that the correct ruling had actually been made, however briefly. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 07:01:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:01:43 +1000 Received: from mail200.image.dk (mail200.image.dk [194.234.58.156]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA02172 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:01:37 +1000 Received: from mail.wol.dk (ex-mail010.image.dk [212.54.64.152]) by mail200.image.dk (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA20745 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:01:02 +0200 Received: (qmail 14807 invoked by uid 0); 24 Apr 1999 21:01:03 -0000 Received: from mail020x.image.dk (HELO mail.wol.dk) (212.54.64.151) by ex-mail010.image.dk with SMTP; 24 Apr 1999 21:01:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 25361 invoked from network); 22 Apr 1999 17:35:44 -0000 Received: from 42.ppp1-10.image.dk (212.54.73.234) by mail020.wol.dk with SMTP; 22 Apr 1999 17:35:44 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 17:35:46 GMT Message-ID: <3739585a.4235019@mail.image.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail200.image.dk id XAA20745 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Don Kersey wrote: >options (he wasn't), he would have designated the nine, although that wo= uld >be systemically the wrong lead from 972. In that case, what am I authori= zed >to know about partner's diamond holding? Law 50C (on minor penalty card): ... Offender's partner is not subject to lead penalty, but information gained through seeing the penalty card is extraneous and unauthorized (see Law=A016A).=20 You know that he played the 9. If that means he has a doubleton, then that is what you know. When the penalty card is played, you are allowed to know that he has that too. Bertel --=20 Denmark, Europe http://image.dk/~blh/ (Danish) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 07:01:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:01:40 +1000 Received: from mail200.image.dk (mail200.image.dk [194.234.58.156]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA02166 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:01:31 +1000 Received: from mail.wol.dk (ex-mail010.image.dk [212.54.64.152]) by mail200.image.dk (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA20762 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:01:04 +0200 Received: (qmail 14994 invoked by uid 0); 24 Apr 1999 21:01:09 -0000 Received: from mail020x.image.dk (HELO mail.wol.dk) (212.54.64.151) by ex-mail010.image.dk with SMTP; 24 Apr 1999 21:01:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 9244 invoked from network); 23 Apr 1999 02:01:32 -0000 Received: from 41.ppp1-6.image.dk (212.54.69.105) by mail010.wol.dk with SMTP; 23 Apr 1999 02:01:32 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is your judgement? Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:01:33 GMT Message-ID: <3727d362.2259839@mail.image.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive >player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original >double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. I'd ask N why he bid 2H. But I think I'd let the board stand. N and S have at least 19 P as far as N knows, and they have the stronger suit. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://image.dk/~blh/ (Danish) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 07:06:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:06:25 +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 HAA02244 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:06:19 +1000 Received: from p8as08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.139] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10b9cq-0008Ph-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:06:12 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: ETHICAL CHOICES & L Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 22:07:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8e96$70ca5760$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: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, April 24, 1999 7:35 PM Subject: ETHICAL CHOICES & L > > > > >The evidence is compelling that east's motivation for bidding 2H was >information that was unauthorized. > >East stated that they were unwilling to penalize 3D because they had only a >stiff diamond. It is to be presumed that such a player would be even less >willing to penalize 2D. > >Consider that east had UI suggesting that west was likely to pass a >reopening double of 2D. This was the very outcome that east was unwilling >to have. Was there a way to avoid that possibility? Yes, bid 2H so partner >could not pass 2DX. This means that the UI demonstrably suggested 2H over >double. > >There are a large number of deals consistent with the auction where 2H goes >down 800. There are a larger number of deals where 2H goes down 200 or 500. > The huddle made the 2H [and for that matter 3H] eminently less risky. A >player willing to risk -800 by bidding 2H might think that a score of -110 >[or -130] obtained by passing might be preferable. Imo, that would make >Pass a LA and is the reason why I feel that the law requires the contract to >be adjusted to 2D. > >Personally, the only call that I would make is Double. The reason is because >my system [negative double agreement] requires it. There are other actions >like pass or 2H that Might Work, but not as often as double. I would not >consider a player that would bid 2H to be my peer, or the peer to anyone >using negative doubles that would reopen with a double. > >Roger Pewick This was South's argument, and I can understand the logic, but like others I consider that the one bid that is suggested by the hesitation is "double". While East did not think her hand was suitable to pass a penalty double, and most seem agreed that this is not good bridge judgement, she made her bids of 2H and 3H on what she thought of her hand, not on what the hesitation suggested to her IMO. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 08:23:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 08:23:33 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA02850 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 08:23:23 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA25290 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA09276 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:23:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:23:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904242223.SAA09276@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Split/Weighted Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > ++++ When you manufacture a tool you expect the workman to use it > skilfully. ~Grattan~ ++++ That's fine if the tool is a hammer or a screwdriver. If it's a high-tech gizmo with lots of knobs and switches, most manufacturers provide instructions. This has to be a genuine culture gap, and I fear we will never bridge it. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 08:59:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 08:59:56 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA02954 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 08:59:48 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA25487 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:59:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA09357 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:59:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:59:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904242259.SAA09357@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson Thanks for the clear exposition of your views. I'm sorry to have misinterpreted them earlier. > Furthermore, the norm is for players to know which card was intended. > Not only does the player normally say something tactless, but anyway, > the card on top will be the one he meant to play in 95+% of cases. I bow to David's greater experience on this matter, but I confess to being surprised. Anyway, it doesn't affect the legal queston. In some cases, intent will be known, and in others it won't. We need the correct ruling in each case. (It may be the same.) > It is my considered opinion that there is sufficient slack in the > wording of L50B, plus the reference to two cards played simultaneously, > that we should follow the way that is normally considered correct, > namely that a small card will always become an mPC. Even if it is known that the small card was intended, and the player now chooses to play the accidentally exposed honor? I gather from the following that the answer is yes. > This does not mean that I agree with Steve. Far from it. Well, that's a relief. :-) > Either the > question of intent is relevant, or it is not, and I think that whether a > player has blurted something out [in Steve's view, that makes him a > beginner: in my view that means he is one of 90% of bridge players!] > should not affect it. > It is my considered opinion that there is no need to consider the > original intent. The key, in my view, is not the player's original intent but whether the intent is known to others at the table. If it is known, the clumsy player's partner has additional information, and a more severe restriction seems merited. This seems consistent with the reasoning for creating the mPC/MPC distinction in the first place. Given the (new) treatment of the circumstances of creation of any penalty card as UI, perhaps the more severe penalty isn't necessary. I am afraid the language allows all three of the interpretations we have discussed. > This is another can of worms! The normal way for two cards to be > visible is the way described, and now Steve is suggesting this might not > be a L58B problem! > > Fortunately Steve is wrong [Whew!]. Accidentally exposed cards by > defenders are played, so once two cards are visible it is automatically > a L58B case. This is OK with me, but would you really rule this way if a player plays a card in normal tempo and then a few seconds later (perhaps while the player is rearranging his hand) another card falls to the table, clearly accidentally? Until now, I'd have treated the first card as played and the second as accidentally exposed -- no L58B. The only irregularity seems to be the second card. Is this wrong? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 09:15:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 09:15:22 +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 JAA03001 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 09:15:10 +1000 Received: from pc3s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.196] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10bBdZ-0000eO-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:15:05 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:16:35 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8ea8$7f93dfc0$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 Date: Saturday, April 24, 1999 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Saturday, April 24, 1999 6:15 PM >Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. > > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>E/ALL Q32 W N E S >> 542 >> J943 1H 2D >>JT965 KT9 AK74 ..P P 2H P >>98 KQ763 P 3D P P >>AK6 T Dbl P 3H AP >>653 8 Q72 >> AJT 3H= NS-140 >> Q8752 >> AJ84 >> >> E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors. Negative doubles. >> >> South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are >>weaker players but not beginners. >>> [s] >Thank you David for a very useful answer. I will print it out and gve it to >South who thinks I rule very strangely on occasion. > [s] >>>I'm not sure why the word "ethical" is in the header, unless the >suggestion >>>is that E was deliberately taking advantage of the hesitation. I would be >>>very cautious in making that accusation, particularly if E is not a strong >>>player. Even so, there are some very strong players who do not understand >>>their obligations after a hesitation by partner. Even if she did, there >is >>>no reason to assume that because we see the Logical Alternatives when it >is >>>posed to us as a problem, that E must have seen them all in the auction. >>>This is a UI problem, but not an ethical one, IMO. >> >> Agreed. > >The reason for the heading was that I wondered whether the choice of 2H >rather than double was a conscious effort to be ethical. East is the wife of >a WBU TD, and may well understand the implications of one bid being >suggested over another. >Far from suggesting a deliberate attempt to field, I was suggesting a >deliberate attempt not to do so. >I actually ruled that the table result should stand for all the reasons >given by others. > >Anne > >>>UI suggests to West a reopening double, but I would have thought there was >>>no LA to this double ... until East found one. So 2H stands. >>> On the next turn, same UI to East which suggests passing West's double of >>>3D. As East didn't choose the bid suggested by UI (Pass, leading to an >easy >>>200 for his side) but a more unfortunate one, it's not even necessary to >>>determine whether ther was LA. Result stands. >> >> Agreed. > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 09:44:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 09:44:05 +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 JAA03050 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 09:43:52 +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 10bC5G-0003IL-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:43:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:41:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Two cards visible In-Reply-To: <199904242259.SAA09357@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199904242259.SAA09357@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson > >Thanks for the clear exposition of your views. I'm sorry to have >misinterpreted them earlier. > >> Furthermore, the norm is for players to know which card was intended. >> Not only does the player normally say something tactless, but anyway, >> the card on top will be the one he meant to play in 95+% of cases. > >I bow to David's greater experience on this matter, but I confess to >being surprised. Anyway, it doesn't affect the legal queston. In >some cases, intent will be known, and in others it won't. We need the >correct ruling in each case. (It may be the same.) > >> It is my considered opinion that there is sufficient slack in the >> wording of L50B, plus the reference to two cards played simultaneously, >> that we should follow the way that is normally considered correct, >> namely that a small card will always become an mPC. > >Even if it is known that the small card was intended, and the player now >chooses to play the accidentally exposed honor? I gather from the >following that the answer is yes. > >> This does not mean that I agree with Steve. Far from it. > >Well, that's a relief. :-) > >> Either the >> question of intent is relevant, or it is not, and I think that whether a >> player has blurted something out [in Steve's view, that makes him a >> beginner: in my view that means he is one of 90% of bridge players!] >> should not affect it. > >> It is my considered opinion that there is no need to consider the >> original intent. > >The key, in my view, is not the player's original intent but whether >the intent is known to others at the table. If it is known, the clumsy >player's partner has additional information, and a more severe >restriction seems merited. This seems consistent with the reasoning >for creating the mPC/MPC distinction in the first place. > >Given the (new) treatment of the circumstances of creation of any >penalty card as UI, perhaps the more severe penalty isn't necessary. I >am afraid the language allows all three of the interpretations we have >discussed. > >> This is another can of worms! The normal way for two cards to be >> visible is the way described, and now Steve is suggesting this might not >> be a L58B problem! >> >> Fortunately Steve is wrong [Whew!]. Accidentally exposed cards by >> defenders are played, so once two cards are visible it is automatically >> a L58B case. > >This is OK with me, but would you really rule this way if a player >plays a card in normal tempo and then a few seconds later (perhaps >while the player is rearranging his hand) another card falls to the >table, clearly accidentally? Until now, I'd have treated the first >card as played and the second as accidentally exposed -- no L58B. >The only irregularity seems to be the second card. Is this wrong? > nope the second card is a dropped card. My ruling is where there is no discernable intent from the manner in which the cards are played, then and only then does 58B come into play. If he smacks one down and the other drops then the dropped card becomes the penalty card. In the case I ruled both cards came out together and it was not evident to any of the other players at the table which one was played. 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 Sun Apr 25 15:31:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:31:10 +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 PAA03917 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:31:03 +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 AAA17080 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 00:30:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 00RKW02R Sun, 25 Apr 99 00:32:43 Message-ID: <9904250032.00RKW02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 99 00:32:43 Subject: ETHICAL C To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>-----Original Message----- B>From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org B>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au B>Date: Saturday, April 24, 1999 7:35 PM B>Subject: ETHICAL CHOICES & L B>> B>> B>> B>> B>>The evidence is compelling that east's motivation for bidding 2H was B>>information that was unauthorized. B>> B>>East stated that they were unwilling to penalize 3D because they had B>only a >stiff diamond. It is to be presumed that such a player would be B>even less >willing to penalize 2D. B>> B>>Consider that east had UI suggesting that west was likely to pass a B>>reopening double of 2D. This was the very outcome that east was B>unwilling >to have. Was there a way to avoid that possibility? Yes, B>bid 2H so partner B>>could not pass 2DX. This means that the UI demonstrably suggested 2H B>over >double. B>> B>>There are a large number of deals consistent with the auction where 2H B>goes >down 800. There are a larger number of deals where 2H goes down B>200 or 500. B>> The huddle made the 2H [and for that matter 3H] eminently less risky. B>A >player willing to risk -800 by bidding 2H might think that a score of B>-110 >[or -130] obtained by passing might be preferable. Imo, that B>would make >Pass a LA and is the reason why I feel that the law requires B>the contract to B>>be adjusted to 2D. B>> B>>Personally, the only call that I would make is Double. The reason is B>because B>>my system [negative double agreement] requires it. There are other B>actions >like pass or 2H that Might Work, but not as often as double. I B>would not >consider a player that would bid 2H to be my peer, or the B>peer to anyone >using negative doubles that would reopen with a double. B>> B>>Roger Pewick B>This was South's argument, and I can understand the logic, but like B>others I consider that the one bid that is suggested by the hesitation B>is "double". B>While East did not think her hand was suitable to pass a penalty double, B>and most seem agreed that this is not good bridge judgement, she made B>her bids of 2H and 3H on what she thought of her hand, not on what the B>hesitation suggested to her IMO. B>Anne For the most part, varying tempo is not what suggests a call- it is the information contained in the tempo, any interpretation by its receiver, and the values held that determine what was suggested. In the case under discussion I will repeat myself: The slow pass tends to suggest one or more of the following 1. general values not suitable for a freebid 2. values suitable for a freebid but likely to be more productive as a penalty double 3. diamond values, maybe not enough to penalize 4. a potential off shape negative double 5. the shape of a negative double without sufficient values 6. support for hearts that is not biddable [for instance, opener might have 5 but promised 4 of uncertain quality] In other words, responder's pass is likely to Not Accurately Represent their holdings. This UI suggests that the action picked by opener is more likely to work than had responder passed in tempo- kind of like insurance. Depending how opener might interpret the tempo, any of several calls might be suggested. By opener's own statement/ bid- they did not want to penalize even 3D when responder said they could. The negative double agreement calls for responder to make the decision in the situation discussed. Yet opener made a unilateral decision. Opener had UI that responder had options. Opener's hand suggested that #3 was extremely likely because of the stiff diamond. But from a bridge stand point, it is precisely when opener is short in the overcall suit that responder is most likely to have a hand worth a penalty double. So, where did opener get the idea that the best way to bid the hand was to keep bidding a ragged 5 card heart suit to the 3 level opposite a partner that finally says they have values but no heart support? Opener did not explain adequately. But being influenced by UI explains everything. Roger Pewick Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 21:58:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:58:55 +1000 Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA04352 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:58:48 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14464) by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id sDZKa08466; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:58:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8a18824f.24545d48@aol.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:58:00 EDT Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements To: mfrench1@san.rr.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 216 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/24/99 12:38:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > We should make up our minds whether *all* failures to Alert that do not > cause damage should get a PP. ++++ Oh? Well I do not think we have the power to 'make our minds up'. The discretion lies with the Director in each instance to decide whether to apply a PP. He "*may*"(sic) apply a penalty. It is my view that a regulation which purports to say he "shall" apply a penalty is in conflict with the law and ultra vires, being an 80F regulation. The friend at my shoulder feels the Director is tasked by Law 90 to make a "judgemental determination" whether the infraction merits a PP or not. I agree. When a Director 'may' do something but does not the law book says he is not wrong. ~Grattan Endicott~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 21:59:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:59:04 +1000 Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA04359 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:58:58 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14464) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qXUYa04279; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:58:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:58:01 EDT Subject: Re: Two cards visible To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 216 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/24/99 12:46:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > It is my considered opinion that there is no need to consider the > original intent. L58B does not, and L50B allows us to designate one > small card as an mPC. ++++ Kojak and I discussed this area of law at length. Our conclusion is (a) that the original intent is set aside by the law and the player is given the option of either card to play. The card not selected then becomes either a MPC or a mPC according to its rank. (b) before the player exercises his option all of the effects of his choice must be explained to him. (c) the law as it stands is expressed in convoluted language; although we are in no doubt about its effects (and that they are the desirable effects), we would move to state it more simply. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 21:58:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:58:50 +1000 Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA04347 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:58:45 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14464) by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qXGEa07145; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 07:57:59 EDT Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 216 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk +++ William J. ('Kojak') Schoder and I think this thread has wound its way to the right answer. East has made two unsound bids but neither was what the UI suggested. 2H at East's second opportunity is acceptable, the normal action is double, this may be suggested by the hesitation; we agree the hesitation is not suggesting Hearts. We note West did not make a negative double of 2D so sensibly the double of 3D can only be for penalty : East has managed to find three bids on a poor heart suit, which most times makes for disaster, but has not been led into it by UI. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 22:54:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:54:45 +1000 Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA04433 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:54:40 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14418) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vASOa02131; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 08:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 08:53:15 EDT Subject: Re: Two cards visible To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 216 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/24/99 7:01:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > This is OK with me, but would you really rule this way if a player > plays a card in normal tempo and then a few seconds later (perhaps > while the player is rearranging his hand) another card falls to the > table, clearly accidentally? Until now, I'd have treated the first > card as played and the second as accidentally exposed -- no L58B. > The only irregularity seems to be the second card. Is this wrong? ++++ Kojak has left me by his PC whilst he goes to find some Sunday papers. So this is gester solo. When we were discussing the law prior to yesterday's posting we thought wording like this is needed: " If in playing to a trick a player exposes two or more cards he shall select which one he will play to the trick and, if he is a defender, any other exposed card then becomes a penalty card, minor or major according to the rank of the card (see Law 50)". We arrived at our position that the law as it stands means this after considering the wording in 50B as contributing to the total understanding of the intention of the law. ~ Grattan Endicott~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 23:30:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:30:17 +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 XAA04504 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:30:05 +1000 Received: from p92s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.147] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10bOyr-0006JA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:29:57 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: ETHICAL C Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:30:53 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8f1f$d7785be0$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: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Date: Sunday, April 25, 1999 2:29 PM Subject: Re: ETHICAL C > >-----Original Message----- >From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >To: blml >Date: Sunday, April 25, 1999 6:51 AM >Subject: ETHICAL C > > >>For the most part, varying tempo is not what suggests a call- it is the >>information contained in the tempo, any interpretation by its receiver, and >>the values held that determine what was suggested. >> >>In the case under discussion I will repeat myself: >> >>The slow pass tends to suggest one or more of the following >>1. general values not suitable for a freebid >>2. values suitable for a freebid but likely to be more productive as a >>penalty double >>3. diamond values, maybe not enough to penalize >>4. a potential off shape negative double >>5. the shape of a negative double without sufficient values >>6. support for hearts that is not biddable [for instance, opener might have >>5 but promised 4 of uncertain quality] >> >>In other words, responder's pass is likely to Not Accurately Represent >their >>holdings. > >Yes. I agree with all this. > > >>This UI suggests that the action picked by opener is more likely >>to work than had responder passed in tempo- kind of like insurance. > >No. I do not think so. I think that the one bid which is not suggested by >the hesitation is a 2H bid, and the hesitation certainly does not suggest a >3H removal. I don't know of anything that would suggest that:-)) > >>Depending how opener might interpret the tempo, any of several calls might >>be suggested. By opener's own statement/ bid- they did not want to >penalize >>even 3D when responder said they could. >> >>The negative double agreement calls for responder to make the decision in >>the situation discussed. > >You are assuming I think a) that everyone plays negative doubles the same >way, and b) that a Pass is forcing. >Because a negative reopening double is one of the tools in the bag, that >does not mean that it must be used when there is UI which suggests its use. > >>Yet opener made a unilateral decision. > >That is what Law16 requires when a player is in receipt of UI. The bid that >she was always going to make, may now not be suitable. She must make effort >to chose a bid which does not use the UI. > > Opener had >>UI that responder had options. Opener's hand suggested that #3 was >>extremely likely because of the stiff diamond. But from a bridge stand >>point, it is precisely when opener is short in the overcall suit that >>responder is most likely to have a hand worth a penalty double. >> >>So, where did opener get the idea that the best way to bid the hand was to >>keep bidding a ragged 5 card heart suit to the 3 level opposite a partner >>that finally says they have values but no heart support? Opener did not >>explain adequately. > >I think a neg double is a good bid here beacause in my system it promised >better than min, and 4 Spades, but this player might tell me that her >negative double reopening a 2 level overcall Vulnerable required 15 HCPs >which she did not have. The UI would now prohibit the shading of her bid. >She might say that a Pass from her would indicate a 12 count. > >>But being influenced by UI explains everything. > >I think that is accusatory and uncalled for. > >Anne > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 25 23:53:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:53:48 +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 XAA04543 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:53:41 +1000 Received: from p77s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.120] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10bPLi-0006dI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:53:35 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Two cards visible Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:55:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01be8f23$3ec3cfc0$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: Schoderb@aol.com To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, April 25, 1999 2:09 PM Subject: Re: Two cards visible >In a message dated 4/24/99 7:01:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > >> This is OK with me, but would you really rule this way if a player >> plays a card in normal tempo and then a few seconds later (perhaps >> while the player is rearranging his hand) another card falls to the >> table, clearly accidentally? Until now, I'd have treated the first >> card as played and the second as accidentally exposed -- no L58B. >> The only irregularity seems to be the second card. Is this wrong? >++++ Kojak has left me by his PC whilst he goes to find some Sunday papers. >So this is gester solo. When we were discussing the law prior to yesterday's >posting we thought wording like this is needed: " If in playing to a trick >a player exposes two or more cards he shall select which one he will play >to the trick and, if he is a defender, any other exposed card then becomes a >penalty card, minor or major according to the rank of the card (see Law 50)". > We arrived at our position that the law as it stands means this after >considering the wording in 50B as contributing to the total understanding >of the intention of the law. ~ Grattan Endicott~ ++++ It's reassuring to know that the still, small voice of Gester is not silenced by his absence from the homeland. Law58B2 could do with a revamp if we are to interpret it this was.Your interpretation makes sence, but "two or more" may be a problem when there are indeed more than two. Law50 tells us that all exposed cards are now MPs irrespective of rank. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 01:55:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 01:55:02 +1000 Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA07063 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 01:54:54 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14365) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fRZHa20195; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:53:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5d661409.24549467@aol.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:53:11 EDT Subject: Re: Two cards visible To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 216 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ++++ Yes. Two or more are major. Sloppy wording by me. We would be happy not to disturb that, although not hostile if consensus did want to change it. It is great here, I have been out with the camera capturing the wild life on the shores of the lake running up to his house. ~Grattan~++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 03:02:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:02:37 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA07378 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:02:28 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA01644 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:02:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA09995 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:02:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904251702.NAA09995@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com (really Grattan, it appears) > posting we thought wording like this is needed: " If in playing to a trick > a player exposes two or more cards he shall select which one he will play > to the trick and, if he is a defender, any other exposed card then becomes a > penalty card, minor or major according to the rank of the card (see Law 50)". > We arrived at our position that the law as it stands means this after > considering the wording in 50B as contributing to the total understanding > of the intention of the law. ~ Grattan Endicott~ ++++ Thanks for the comments. At first glance, I think the wording above is fine for L58B, but I think you need some changes in L50B as well to make matters completely clear. While you are at it, you might consider removing the whole question of intent from the major/minor PC decision, now that the intent is UI. Maybe major/minor should depend only on rank in all cases. I am not sure whether this is a good idea or not, but it seems worth considering between now and 2007. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 04:02:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:02:21 +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 EAA07484 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:02:13 +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 NAA21584 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:02:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0I4FZ00K Sun, 25 Apr 99 12:54:03 Message-ID: <9904251254.0I4FZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 99 12:54:03 Subject: FW: ETHICAL C To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>-----Original Message----- B>From: Anne Jones B>To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org B>Date: Sunday, April 25, 1999 2:29 PM B>Subject: Re: ETHICAL C B>> B>>-----Original Message----- B>>From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org B>>To: blml B>>Date: Sunday, April 25, 1999 6:51 AM B>>Subject: ETHICAL C B>> B>> B>>>For the most part, varying tempo is not what suggests a call- it is B>the >>information contained in the tempo, any interpretation by its B>receiver, and B>>>the values held that determine what was suggested. B>>> B>>>In the case under discussion I will repeat myself: B>>> B>>>The slow pass tends to suggest one or more of the following B>>>1. general values not suitable for a freebid B>>>2. values suitable for a freebid but likely to be more productive as a B>>>penalty double B>>>3. diamond values, maybe not enough to penalize B>>>4. a potential off shape negative double B>>>5. the shape of a negative double without sufficient values B>>>6. support for hearts that is not biddable [for instance, opener might B>have 5 but promised 4 of uncertain quality] B>>> B>>>In other words, responder's pass is likely to Not Accurately Represent B>>their B>>>holdings. B>> B>>Yes. I agree with all this. However, Grattan and Kojak strongly disagree. B>>>This UI suggests that the action picked by opener is more likely B>>>to work than had responder passed in tempo- kind of like insurance. B>> B>>No. I do not think so. I think that the one bid which is not suggested B>by >the hesitation is a 2H bid, and the hesitation certainly does not B>suggest a >3H removal. I don't know of anything that would suggest B>that:-)) > B>>>Depending how opener might interpret the tempo, any of several calls B>might >>be suggested. By opener's own statement/ bid- they did not want B>to >penalize B>>>even 3D when responder said they could. B>>> B>>>The negative double agreement calls for responder to make the decision B>in >>the situation discussed. B>> B>>You are assuming I think a) that everyone plays negative doubles the B>same >way, and b) that a Pass is forcing. huh???? To have a difficult to use agreement that may frequently cause responder to huddle might be considered to be a bit risque, might it not? Bobby Wolff has made such arguments about conventions like Smith Echo. I think that BW's solution is unsatisfactory, but I have one that I think is satisfactory. What I have assumed is that I was given accurate facts upon which to draw conclusions. B>>Because a negative reopening double is one of the tools in the bag, B>that >does not mean that it must be used when there is UI which suggests B>its use. When an agreement compels a particular action and a different action is taken and UI was available, a normal conclusion is that there was connection between UI and the errant action- barring an explanation that fulfills the requirements for releasing a player from their responsibility. B>>>Yet opener made a unilateral decision. B>> B>>That is what Law16 requires when a player is in receipt of UI. The bid B>that >she was always going to make, may now not be suitable. She must B>make effort >to chose a bid which does not use the UI. Is this an argument that when system requires that one particular call be made, that UI that suggests same, makes the call unsuitable? I have shown that 2H was demonstrably suggested over double. B>> Opener had B>>>UI that responder had options. Opener's hand suggested that #3 was B>>>extremely likely because of the stiff diamond. But from a bridge B>stand >>point, it is precisely when opener is short in the overcall suit B>that >>responder is most likely to have a hand worth a penalty double. B>>> B>>>So, where did opener get the idea that the best way to bid the hand B>was to >>keep bidding a ragged 5 card heart suit to the 3 level opposite B>a partner >>that finally says they have values but no heart support? B>Opener did not >>explain adequately. B>> B>>I think a neg double is a good bid here beacause in my system it B>promised >better than min, and 4 Spades, but this player might tell me But she did not tell, so it is relevent as evidence to the contrary. If had shown such evidence, I never would have said what I said and may not have said anything at all. B>that her >negative double reopening a 2 level overcall Vulnerable B>required 15 HCPs >which she did not have. The UI would now prohibit the B>shading of her bid. B>>She might say that a Pass from her would indicate a 12 count. B>> B>>>But being influenced by UI explains everything. B>> B>>I think that is accusatory and uncalled for. B>> B>>Anne Sorry :-( Roger Pewick Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 04:22:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:22:23 +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 EAA07543 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:22:18 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (86) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qUHJa20896; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:21:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:21:08 EDT Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk +++ William J. ('Kojak') Schoder and I think this thread has wound its way to the right answer. East has made two unsound bids but neither was what the UI suggested. 2H at East's second opportunity is acceptable, the normal action is double, this may be suggested by the hesitation; we agree the hesitation is not suggesting Hearts. We note West did not make a negative double of 2D so sensibly the double of 3D can only be for penalty : East has managed to find three bids on a poor heart suit, which most times makes for disaster, but has not been led into it by UI. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 04:22:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:22:44 +1000 Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA07549 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:22:37 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (86) by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qDDRa18507; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:21:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2a658436.2454b731@aol.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:21:37 EDT Subject: Re: Two cards visible To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/24/99 12:46:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > It is my considered opinion that there is no need to consider the > original intent. L58B does not, and L50B allows us to designate one > small card as an mPC. ++++ Kojak and I discussed this area of law at length. Our conclusion is (a) that the original intent is set aside by the law and the player is given the option of either card to play. The card not selected then becomes either a MPC or a mPC according to its rank. (b) before the player exercises his option all of the effects of his choice must be explained to him. (c) the law as it stands is expressed in convoluted language; although we are in no doubt about its effects (and that they are the desirable effects), we would move to state it more simply. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 04:24:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:24:14 +1000 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA07571 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:24:08 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (86) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id sSYOa05754; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:21:19 EDT Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements To: mfrench1@san.rr.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/24/99 12:38:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > We should make up our minds whether *all* failures to Alert that do not > cause damage should get a PP. ++++ Oh? Well I do not think we have the power to 'make our minds up'. The discretion lies with the Director in each instance to decide whether to apply a PP. He "*may*"(sic) apply a penalty. It is my view that a regulation which purports to say he "shall" apply a penalty is in conflict with the law and ultra vires, being an 80F regulation. The friend at my shoulder feels the Director is tasked by Law 90 to make a "judgemental determination" whether the infraction merits a PP or not. I agree. When a Director 'may' do something but does not the law book says he is not wrong. ~Grattan Endicott~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 04:25:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:25:38 +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 EAA07592 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:25:33 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA05977 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000b01be8f48$fd525040$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <8a18824f.24545d48@aol.com> Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 11:25:16 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes: > Marvin L. French writes: > > We should make up our minds whether *all* failures to Alert that do not > > cause damage should get a PP. > > ++++ Oh? Well I do not think we have the power to 'make our minds up'. > The discretion lies with the Director in each instance to decide whether to > apply > a PP. He "*may*"(sic) apply a penalty. It is my view that a regulation which > purports to say he "shall" apply a penalty is in conflict with the law and > ultra vires, > being an 80F regulation. > The friend at my shoulder feels the Director is tasked by Law 90 to > make a "judgemental determination" whether the infraction merits a PP or not. > I agree. When > a Director 'may' do something but does not the law book says he is not wrong. "Judgmental discrimination" might be a better term. If you look through ACBL AC cases you see over and over that a PP has been assessed for an infraction that caused no damage, merely as a sop for the losers of an appeal. "We can't rule for you, but we'll penalize them anyway." There is no correlation between the seriousness of harmless MI (the oxymoron reinforces the point) and the assessment of PPs. If PPs are to be given out for MI, why not give them out for damaging MI as well as harmless MI? Answer: Because the penalty for damaging MI is considered to be sufficient punishment. But the laws are primarily designed to provide redress, not to punish. Accordingly, if punishment with a PP is in order, it should make no difference whether the MI caused damage or not. I have never seen an occasion where a TD was called to my table because of an Alert failure or other MI and has ruled no damage but issues a PP. Maybe it happens in the U. K. and elsewhere, maybe even in ACBL-land, I just haven't seen it happen. No, just about the only time a PP is assessed is when an MI or UI ruling is appealed unsuccessfully. The exceptions are very rare. This is *prima facie* evidence that PPs are being used to augment MI/'UI Laws, in the belief that they are insufficient, rather than for the sole purpose of punishing violations of procedure. I could cite many cases, but one will illustrate the point: 1997 Summer NABC in Albuquerque, Case 7, NABC AC co-chair Alan LeBendig presiding: Bd 17, Flight A Swiss, 30 July 1997, Second Session Dlr: North Vul: none Vulnerability: S- 75 H- KJ109873 D- 7 C- KQJ S- 1098 S- AK6 H- A2 H- Q D- QJ9 D- AK86542 C- 105432 C- 76 S- QJ432 H- 654 D- 103 C- A98 West North East South 3H 4D 4H Pass* Pass 5D Pass Pass 5H Dbl All pass * Break in Tempo The Facts: 5H doubled went down three, plus 500 for E/W. The Director ruled that pass by East was not a logical alternative, but that bidding 5D rather than doubling was demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information. The contract was changed to 4H doubled down two, plus 300 for E/W. The ruling was appealed sucessfully, the AC deciding that result stands on the basis that double, not 5D, was "a more suggested alternative" than 5D. Why do I cite this case in relation to PPs? Because of Rich Colker's comments about it. Rich is the editor of the AC casebooks (usually) and the author of AC guidelines. Here's what he said about this case: (snip of much analysis, ending with:) "While East's action did not result in direct damage to N/S, it did result in an advantage for E/W, due to North's ill-judged 5H bid. Even without West's huddle, it is hard to imagine East not doubling 4H. I would therefore have allowed the table result to stand for E/W, but assessed a procedural penalty against them equal to the IMP difference between the table result and the result for 4H doubled down two (plus 500 vs plus 300)." A "judgmental determination," hence okay? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 07:40:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:40:33 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08062 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:40:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10bWdN-000KUo-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:40:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 02:45:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Two cards visible References: <199904242259.SAA09357@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904242259.SAA09357@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> This is another can of worms! The normal way for two cards to be >> visible is the way described, and now Steve is suggesting this might not >> be a L58B problem! >> >> Fortunately Steve is wrong [Whew!]. Accidentally exposed cards by >> defenders are played, so once two cards are visible it is automatically >> a L58B case. > >This is OK with me, but would you really rule this way if a player >plays a card in normal tempo and then a few seconds later (perhaps >while the player is rearranging his hand) another card falls to the >table, clearly accidentally? Until now, I'd have treated the first >card as played and the second as accidentally exposed -- no L58B. >The only irregularity seems to be the second card. Is this wrong? No, but, surely it is just something different from what we have been discussing? As far as I am aware, all we have been discussing is how we treat penalty cards when two or more cards are played simultaneously. You are talking of something totally different, when no cards are played simultaneously. Of course this is different, L58 no longer applies. PWD -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 07:49:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:49:49 +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 HAA08120 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 07:49:42 +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 <19990425214936.KTU6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:49:36 -0700 Message-ID: <37238F08.4E2C83E6@home.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 14:54:17 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: ETHICAL CHOIC References: <9904240009.007PH02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger - first a general plea: Doesn't your e-mail software allow you to just "respond" or "reply" to a posting, so as to keep your posting within the thread? If not, can't you just use *exactly* (i.e. incl. upper/lower case) the same "subject" as everyone else? It really messes up my mailbox having the same topic discussed in 2 threads, in addition to which it makes it more difficult to follow the discussion. Am I the only one to have this problem? r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > The most likely meanings of West's pause include [a] desire to make a > negative double but can't handle if partner bids the 'wrong suit' > and/or [2] > has the potential values to penalize the overcall and/or [3] has > support > which is not biddable. The effect of the huddle is that it > practically > assures opener that whether they rebid their suit or make a reopening > double, it will be successful. How so? Even if accepting only those 3 suggested "meanings" of the huddle, both "a" and "2" suggest *short* hearts. Double is the only action that caters to all 3. Contrary to what you say their is no assurance whatsoever that rebidding hearts will be successful (in fact quite to the contrary). > The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. The > huddle > suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the call be > double > and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. First you say pass and 2H are both "reasonable", then you say the system *requires* a double. Apart from the contradiction in your statement, how on earth do you know what *E/W's* "system" requires?? One of the many mistakes in your analysis is that you seemingly assume EW play a 5cM system, when it was stipulated that they play "acol" ie 4cM. In a 5cM context with neg. doubles there is certainly *no* alternative to double and Anne would surely not have posted this "problem". Only in a 4cM context is 2H even remotely conceivable. Furthermore you don't know if this EW plays "automatic" reopening doubles when short in opponents' suit, or if it requires some "extras". > 2H was selected instead of > double so 2H was an infraction. You seem to have no clue about how to apply L16. It is not an infraction to chose the "wrong" bid. In this case it can be argued that opener did everything to follow the law by *not* chosing the double, which was clearly (at least to the rest of us) the call suggested by the UI. > For a player that does not make the > required systemic bid, pass is a LA. See above. What one *can* conclude is that either this player followed L16 very well, or he is so weak that for his peer-group all of X, Pass, 2H and 2S are LAs. One thing common to many postings on this is the assumption that neither Pass nor 2H are LAs. I agree with this if the peer-group is advanced or better. For *this* very weak player's peers there are several LAs, particularly if using the ACBL definition (and remembering they play 4cM). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 08:53:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:53:53 +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 IAA08232 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:53:47 +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 <19990425225338.VKN6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:53:38 -0700 Message-ID: <37239E0A.18214CB7@home.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 15:58:19 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: ETHICAL C References: <9904250032.00RKW02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > B>>The evidence is compelling that east's motivation for bidding 2H > B>>was > B>>information that was unauthorized. ??? Poor E if she was just bending over backwards not to use UI :-( > B>bid 2H so partner > B>>could not pass 2DX. This means that the UI demonstrably suggested > B>>2H > B>>over double. Even if I agreed to follow this "logic" it would demonstrably suggest Pass! > So, where did opener get the idea that the best way to bid the hand > was to > keep bidding a ragged 5 card heart suit to the 3 level opposite a > partner > that finally says they have values but no heart support? Maybe she got the idea that her suicidal bidding was called for by L16? > Opener did not > explain adequately. But being influenced by UI explains everything. This accusation is totally uncalled for, in addition to being totally illogical. You are accusing her of *deliberately* using UI. I venture a guess that she didn't *deliberately* do anything. You are attributing to her a calculating deviousness not matched by your estimate of her bridgeabilities! We all have to learn to accept that once in a while a virtual beginner taking a "weird" action will turn out lucky. To accept all their gifts, while trying to take away their occasional average by overly clever lawyering, has a bad smell to it. (and my apologies to East if she really is good enough, and knowledgable enough of the laws, to have bid as she did in a conscious effort to obide by L16). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 09:17:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:17:15 +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 JAA08269 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:17:10 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10bY8c-0001qR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 01:16:38 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990426011338.0082de60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 01:13:38 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: ETHICAL CHOIC In-Reply-To: <37238F08.4E2C83E6@home.com> References: <9904240009.007PH02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 14:54 25-04-99 -0700, you wrote: >Roger - first a general plea: Doesn't your e-mail software allow you to >just "respond" or "reply" to a posting, so as to keep your posting >within the thread? If not, can't you just use *exactly* (i.e. incl. >upper/lower case) the same "subject" as everyone else? It really messes >up my mailbox having the same topic discussed in 2 threads, in addition >to which it makes it more difficult to follow the discussion. Am I the >only one to have this problem? > >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: >> >> The most likely meanings of West's pause include [a] desire to make a >> negative double but can't handle if partner bids the 'wrong suit' > and/or [2] >> has the potential values to penalize the overcall and/or [3] has > support >> which is not biddable. The effect of the huddle is that it > practically >> assures opener that whether they rebid their suit or make a reopening >> double, it will be successful. > >How so? Even if accepting only those 3 suggested "meanings" of the >huddle, both "a" and "2" suggest *short* hearts. Double is the only >action that caters to all 3. Contrary to what you say their is no >assurance whatsoever that rebidding hearts will be successful (in fact >quite to the contrary). > >> The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. The > huddle >> suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the call be > double >> and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. > >First you say pass and 2H are both "reasonable", then you say the system >*requires* a double. Apart from the contradiction in your statement, how >on earth do you know what *E/W's* "system" requires?? One of the many >mistakes in your analysis is that you seemingly assume EW play a 5cM >system, when it was stipulated that they play "acol" ie 4cM. In a 5cM >context with neg. doubles there is certainly *no* alternative to double >and Anne would surely not have posted this "problem". Only in a 4cM >context is 2H even remotely conceivable. Furthermore you don't know if >this EW plays "automatic" reopening doubles when short in opponents' >suit, or if it requires some "extras". > >> 2H was selected instead of >> double so 2H was an infraction. > >You seem to have no clue about how to apply L16. It is not an infraction >to chose the "wrong" bid. In this case it can be argued that opener did >everything to follow the law by *not* chosing the double, which was >clearly (at least to the rest of us) the call suggested by the UI. > >> For a player that does not make the >> required systemic bid, pass is a LA. > >See above. What one *can* conclude is that either this player followed >L16 very well, or he is so weak that for his peer-group all of X, Pass, >2H and 2S are LAs. >One thing common to many postings on this is the assumption that neither >Pass nor 2H are LAs. I agree with this if the peer-group is advanced or >better. For *this* very weak player's peers there are several LAs, >particularly if using the ACBL definition (and remembering they play >4cM). > one last remark. No one asked why west didnt bid 2S (8-11, 5cd spades, standard in acol). This probably indicates that west was thinking about a D. or is a very weak player indeed. so D by opener becomes more logical after thinking of W, and is not a LA. In acol D is standard in this situation without thinking. Pass of W can indicate lots of trumps. Thus 2H probably isnt indicated by the slow pass. regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 10:05:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:05:57 +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 KAA08365 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:05:45 +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 <19990426000533.BILV6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:05:33 -0700 Message-ID: <3723AEE5.2BB940FC@home.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:10:13 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: FW: ETHICAL C References: <9904251254.0I4FZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > B>> > B>>>For the most part, varying tempo is not what suggests a call- it > B>>>is > B>>>the information contained in the tempo, any interpretation by its > B>>>receiver, and > B>>>the values held that determine what was suggested. > B>>> > B>>>In the case under discussion I will repeat myself: (snipping the repetition) > B>>>In other words, responder's pass is likely to Not Accurately > B>>>Represent their holdings. To which Anne responded: > B>>Yes. I agree with all this. And Roger rebutted: > However, Grattan and Kojak strongly disagree. Roger must have received some private e-mail from "G+K". From what I've seen, they did nothing of the sort. They simply said that neither of East's actions were demonstrably suggested by the UI, an opinion with which everyone except Roger seems to agree. Roger said: > B>>>The negative double agreement calls for responder to make the > B>>>decision in the situation discussed. To which Anne correctly responded: > B>> > B>>You are assuming I think a) that everyone plays negative doubles > B>>the > B>>same way, and b) that a Pass is forcing. And Roger rebutted: > huh???? > > To have a difficult to use agreement that may frequently cause > responder to > huddle might be considered to be a bit risque, might it not? You have to stop imposing your own thoughts, agreements etc upon the players involved in a situation. It is the agreement of the players involved that counts, irrespective of your opinions of it's merits. Although it is irrelevant, many strong players have the agreement that responder's pass is *not* forcing, i.e. it is *not* automatic to reopen with 0-2 cards in overcaller's suit. > What I have assumed is that I was given accurate facts upon which to > draw conclusions. You were given nothing about the detailed negX agreements of this partnership, only that they play "Acol, weak NT and negX". > When an agreement compels a particular action and a different action > is taken and UI was available, a normal conclusion is that there was > connection > between UI and the errant action- barring an explanation that > fulfills the > requirements for releasing a player from their responsibility. But it seems that *this pair's* agreement *did not* compel a particular action. If a double was forced, as you seem to suggest, then you must either allow the 2H bid or enforce the double (we've had other discussions on this), you cannot force them to make *another* call (pass) that is not an LA!! So even with your own (incorrect) assumptions you must either let the table-result stand, or enforce the double which would of course lead to EW finding their spade-fit. > Is this an argument that when system requires that one particular call > be made, that UI that suggests same, makes the call unsuitable? If you can provide irrefutable evidence that your system only allows call X when holding hand Y, you will always be allowed call X since there are simply no LAs as per your system. This East apparently didn't have the firm agreement that she must double, as evidenced by the fact that she didn't double! > I have shown that 2H was demonstrably suggested over double. Huh?! Saying it is doesn't make it so (lest "demonstrably" takes on a whole new meaning), and you seem to be in a minority of one here. Earlier you discussed why East didn't belong to your peer-group. If you cannot see why the opposite is true (i.e. that double is suggested over 2H) then the question is to which peer-group *you* belong, not East. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 10:26:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:26:54 +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 KAA08419 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:26:40 +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 <19990426002634.BMIE6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:26:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3723B3D3.707AF194@home.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:31:15 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: [Fwd: What is your judgement?] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------E9A411945AA718790D7141A1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------E9A411945AA718790D7141A1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry - omitted to address this to blml: --------------E9A411945AA718790D7141A1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <3720392C.CA46B32D@home.com> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:11:08 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is your judgement? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To a strong, agressive, North his hand is absolute max for 1H, so I don't consider pass an LA. Result stands, since I cannot allow my feeling that South deserves to be "punished" (he surely paused to kick himself for not overcalling 1D in the first place, avoiding the problem) to influence my decision. Btw, West's pass on 2C seems extremely timid to me. Raise pard's 3C directly to 3C, b4 N has a chance to act again. It is naive to beleive strong, agressive, opponents will let you play 2C, so "bid at once what you must anyway bid later" to give opponents the last guess. In a sense I don't critisize the last pass as much - West took a decision on the last round, and stuck with it. David Stevenson wrote: > > This is an easy one! Just a simple UI judgement problems, no snags. > > B10 KT7 W N E S > E/ALL JT874 > J93 1C DBL > Q8 53 6542 P 1H 2C ...P > K532 Q6 P 2H AP > T764 K > JT9 AJ93 AKQ742 > A9 > AQ852 > 86 > > Slow pass by South agreed. North is a strong highly aggressive > player. Despite South's actual hand, the agreement is that the original > double shows three cards in each unbid suit or 18+ HCP. > > This was in a match to decide a league: last match of the season, > teams level on points, way ahead of anyone else. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ --------------E9A411945AA718790D7141A1-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 10:43:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:43:24 +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 KAA08464 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:43:18 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-58.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.159]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA24008 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 20:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3723B7D1.868F35B0@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 20:48:17 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is really great to read an opinion from Kojak. It is also nice to know that he is out there reading these discussions. I doubt that there is a more respected director in North America than Kojak. Our tournaments are not the same without him. Nancy Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > +++ William J. ('Kojak') Schoder and I think this thread has wound its way to > the right answer. East has made two unsound bids but neither was what the UI > suggested. 2H at East's second opportunity is acceptable, the normal action > is double, this may be suggested by the hesitation; we agree the hesitation > is not suggesting Hearts. We note West did not make a negative double of 2D > so sensibly the double of 3D can only be for penalty : East has managed to > find three bids on a poor heart suit, which most times makes for disaster, > but has not been led into it by UI. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 10:52:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:52:36 +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 KAA08507 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:52:27 +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 <19990426005215.BRHW6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:52:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3723B9D7.778FE51C@home.com> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:56:55 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: ETHICAL CHOIC References: <9904240009.007PH02@bbs.hal-pc.org> <3.0.5.32.19990426011338.0082de60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > No one asked why west didnt bid 2S (8-11, 5cd spades, standard in > acol). Here we go again. *Please* - Anton - stop attributing things to acol, that have absolutely nothing to do with the system played. So called "negative free bids" are played by many, regardless of basic system, and are certainly not an integral part of the acol system. It is not the first time here that you make these kind of statements. Just because you play a version of "acol" as well as "negative free bids" does not make the latter part of acol any more than "NMF" or any other convention you might employ. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 10:58:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:58:50 +1000 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 KAA08534 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:58:43 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10bZjJ-0004ra-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:58:37 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990426025535.00ac5db0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:55:35 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: FW: ETHICAL C In-Reply-To: <3723AEE5.2BB940FC@home.com> References: <9904251254.0I4FZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:10 25-04-99 -0700, you wrote: >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > >> B>> >> B>>>For the most part, varying tempo is not what suggests a call- it > B>>>is >> B>>>the information contained in the tempo, any interpretation by its >> B>>>receiver, and >> B>>>the values held that determine what was suggested. >> B>>> >> B>>>In the case under discussion I will repeat myself: > >(snipping the repetition) > >> B>>>In other words, responder's pass is likely to Not Accurately >> B>>>Represent their holdings. > >To which Anne responded: > >> B>>Yes. I agree with all this. > >And Roger rebutted: > >> However, Grattan and Kojak strongly disagree. > >Roger must have received some private e-mail from "G+K". From what I've >seen, they did nothing of the sort. They simply said that neither of >East's actions were demonstrably suggested by the UI, an opinion with >which everyone except Roger seems to agree. > >Roger said: > >> B>>>The negative double agreement calls for responder to make the >> B>>>decision in the situation discussed. > >To which Anne correctly responded: > >> B>> >> B>>You are assuming I think a) that everyone plays negative doubles > B>>the >> B>>same way, and b) that a Pass is forcing. > >And Roger rebutted: > >> huh???? >> >> To have a difficult to use agreement that may frequently cause > responder to >> huddle might be considered to be a bit risque, might it not? > >You have to stop imposing your own thoughts, agreements etc upon the >players involved in a situation. It is the agreement of the players >involved that counts, irrespective of your opinions of it's merits. >Although it is irrelevant, many strong players have the agreement that >responder's pass is *not* forcing, i.e. it is *not* automatic to reopen >with 0-2 cards in overcaller's suit. > i dont think thats true, especially in team games. D is fairly automatic, certainly with 1 d (you have tolerance for all other suits if PD elects to bid after D) >> What I have assumed is that I was given accurate facts upon which to >> draw conclusions. > >You were given nothing about the detailed negX agreements of this >partnership, only that they play "Acol, weak NT and negX". > >> When an agreement compels a particular action and a different action >> is taken and UI was available, a normal conclusion is that there was >> connection >> between UI and the errant action- barring an explanation that >> fulfills the >> requirements for releasing a player from their responsibility. > >But it seems that *this pair's* agreement *did not* compel a particular >action. If a double was forced, as you seem to suggest, then you must >either allow the 2H bid or enforce the double (we've had other >discussions on this), you cannot force them to make *another* call >(pass) that is not an LA!! So even with your own (incorrect) assumptions >you must either let the table-result stand, or enforce the double which >would of course lead to EW finding their spade-fit. > indeed P is not a LA 2S would be fairly optimistic :) >> Is this an argument that when system requires that one particular call >> be made, that UI that suggests same, makes the call unsuitable? > >If you can provide irrefutable evidence that your system only allows >call X when holding hand Y, you will always be allowed call X since >there are simply no LAs as per your system. This East apparently didn't >have the firm agreement that she must double, as evidenced by the fact >that she didn't double! > she didnt because she (was it a she indeed??) felt there was UI >> I have shown that 2H was demonstrably suggested over double. > nonsense indeed >Huh?! Saying it is doesn't make it so (lest "demonstrably" takes on a >whole new meaning), and you seem to be in a minority of one here. >Earlier you discussed why East didn't belong to your peer-group. If you >cannot see why the opposite is true (i.e. that double is suggested over >2H) then the question is to which peer-group *you* belong, not East. > ok, lets quit the case regards, anton Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 12:00:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:00:41 +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 MAA08610 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:00:35 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivei97.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.39]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA25121 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990425215826.007005c4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 21:58:26 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ETHICAL CHOIC In-Reply-To: <9904240009.007PH02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:09 AM 4/24/99, Roger wrote: > >The most likely meanings of West's pause include [a] desire to make a >negative double but can't handle if partner bids the 'wrong suit' and/or [2] >has the potential values to penalize the overcall and/or [3] has support >which is not biddable. The effect of the huddle is that it practically >assures opener that whether they rebid their suit or make a reopening >double, it will be successful. > >The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. The huddle >suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the call be double >and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. 2H was selected instead of >double so 2H was an infraction. For a player that does not make the >required systemic bid, pass is a LA. Where did you come up with that principle? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 12:15:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:15:09 +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 MAA08654 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:15:04 +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 10bavB-0003F1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:14:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:01:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: FW: ETHICAL C References: <9904251254.0I4FZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> <3723AEE5.2BB940FC@home.com> <3.0.5.32.19990426025535.00ac5db0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990426025535.00ac5db0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: >ok, lets quit the case One of the less pleasing habits on various newsgroups are people who post an opinion, and then indicate that their opinion should conclude the thread. We have been mercifully very free of that on BLML. Anton, you have just given two or three opinions that people may or may not agree with: at the very least, suggesting that people do not give counter-opinions is rude. If you think a thread has gone on too long, then you stop posting to it. Please do not post some opinions and *then* suggest that no more should be posted. It is a *very* aggravating habit. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 12:25:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:25:46 +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 MAA08682 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:25:40 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivei97.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.39]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA04929 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:25:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:23:19 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Opinions, Please Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) Nobody vul, N dealer KQJxx KTx ATxx A Ax J9x Kxxx xxxx (EW Passing) N S 1S 1nt* 3D** ...3S 3NT P *forcing **game force By taking the right view in the heart suit and with clubs 4-4, declarer makes 3nt. Indeed, he makes 5 when an opponent wrongly pitches a diamond on the run of spades, but in any case 3nt is unbeatable the way S played it. The director was called at the time of the hesitaition (all agreed it was lengthy), and E summoned him back after the hand. He adjusted to 4S down 1, based on the idea that the hesitation suggests doubt about spades which N might otherwise choose to bid, and that a tapping defense will establish the club winner before N can estabish 10 tricks. Because the result ended up immaterial to the final standings, NS chose not to appeal. But the questions are 1) is the TD's ruling correct and 2) if so, how should an AC have decided if it had come to that? Thanks, Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 12:46:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:46:49 +1000 Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA08740 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:46:43 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (8069) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vFTSa22444; Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 22:32:03 EDT Subject: Re: Two cards visible To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/25/99 1:04:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > Thanks for the comments. At first glance, I think the wording above is > fine for L58B, but I think you need some changes in L50B as well to > make matters completely clear. ++++ Please see reply to Anne Jones today. We agree that changes made in 58 need to be matched with wording in 50. ++++ > > While you are at it, you might consider removing the whole question of > intent from the major/minor PC decision, now that the intent is UI. > Maybe major/minor should depend only on rank in all cases. I am not > sure whether this is a good idea or not, but it seems worth considering > between now and 2007. > ++++ If you are referring to definition of a penalty card as major or minor in whatever way it came about, the water would be very deep and we need to think. There are real problems that could arise out of the possibilities of chicanery (K's word) that might be created. We could signal with small cards in our attempts to 'revoke', for example. So think carefully here. ~Grattan~ [and the Master K] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 14:47:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:47:10 +1000 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA08920 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:47:05 +1000 Received: from hdavis (209-122-254-248.s248.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.254.248]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA06193 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001601be8f9f$cc98f1a0$f8fe7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Opinions, Please Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 00:46:49 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Sunday, April 25, 1999 10:23 PM Subject: Opinions, Please > Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: > > Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) > Nobody vul, N dealer > > > KQJxx > KTx > ATxx > A > > Ax > J9x > Kxxx > xxxx > > (EW Passing) > N S > 1S 1nt* > 3D** ...3S > 3NT P > > *forcing > **game force > > By taking the right view in the heart suit and with clubs 4-4, declarer > makes 3nt. Indeed, he makes 5 when an opponent wrongly pitches a diamond on > the run of spades, but in any case 3nt is unbeatable the way S played it. > > The director was called at the time of the hesitaition (all agreed it was > lengthy), and E summoned him back after the hand. He adjusted to 4S down 1, > based on the idea that the hesitation suggests doubt about spades which N > might otherwise choose to bid, and that a tapping defense will establish > the club winner before N can estabish 10 tricks. > > Because the result ended up immaterial to the final standings, NS chose not > to appeal. But the questions are 1) is the TD's ruling correct and 2) if > so, how should an AC have decided if it had come to that? > > Thanks, > > Mike Dennis We need to know more about the N/S system before addressing these questions. Is an absolute game force in effect after 3D? Is the 3S call a simple preference, or does it show positive support? In starting to respond to this question, I was able to construct reasonable meanings for this sequence in which the ruling was right (N could go past 3N systemically), and other reasonable meanings in which the ruling was wrong (N forced to bid 3N by system, regardless of S spade holding). What did the 3S call mean to *these* players? Without knowing more about the N/S system, the questions are unanswerable. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 18:32:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:32:06 +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 SAA09209 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:31:57 +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 IAA27780; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:31:21 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 IAA14220; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:29:30 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990426103159.007e8ca0@phedre.meteo.fr> X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:31:59 +0200 To: "Michael S. Dennis" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 22:23 25/04/99 -0400, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: > >Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) >Nobody vul, N dealer > > > KQJxx > KTx > ATxx > A > > Ax > J9x > Kxxx > xxxx > >(EW Passing) >N S >1S 1nt* >3D** ...3S >3NT P > >*forcing >**game force > >By taking the right view in the heart suit and with clubs 4-4, declarer >makes 3nt. Indeed, he makes 5 when an opponent wrongly pitches a diamond on >the run of spades, but in any case 3nt is unbeatable the way S played it. > >The director was called at the time of the hesitaition (all agreed it was >lengthy), and E summoned him back after the hand. He adjusted to 4S down 1, >based on the idea that the hesitation suggests doubt about spades which N >might otherwise choose to bid, and that a tapping defense will establish >the club winner before N can estabish 10 tricks. > >Because the result ended up immaterial to the final standings, NS chose not >to appeal. But the questions are 1) is the TD's ruling correct and 2) if >so, how should an AC have decided if it had come to that? > >Mike Dennis > Not so clear-cut as some recent UI problems on the list IMO. 1. UI to North: agreed 2. What does UI suggest? I don't know for sure: it could be doubt about spades, too good a hand for (only) 3S, diamond fit. I think it suggests North not to make a "lazy" bid but not indicating a clear direction. 3. There should not be LA to 3NT but it would also be difficult to find many peers for this North (overbidding 3D!) and an accurate investigation by AC would be helpful to determine whether 4S should not be considered a LA. Without any more evidence, I would be inclined to let 3NT stand but I would accept a different AC decision made as a result of a deep investigation and inquiries. JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 18:58:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:58:02 +1000 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 SAA09274 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:57:56 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10bhD5-0007S0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:57:51 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990426105450.00aba220@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:54:50 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: FW: ETHICAL C In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990426025535.00ac5db0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <9904251254.0I4FZ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> <3723AEE5.2BB940FC@home.com> <3.0.5.32.19990426025535.00ac5db0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:01 26-04-99 +0100, you wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: > >>ok, lets quit the case > > One of the less pleasing habits on various newsgroups are people who >post an opinion, and then indicate that their opinion should conclude >the thread. We have been mercifully very free of that on BLML. > > Anton, you have just given two or three opinions that people may or >may not agree with: at the very least, suggesting that people do not >give counter-opinions is rude. If you think a thread has gone on too >long, then you stop posting to it. > > Please do not post some opinions and *then* suggest that no more >should be posted. It is a *very* aggravating habit. > sorry, it wasnt meant to be put that way; i wouldnt think about insulting anyone at all. But to me it looks a bit like every one is repeating their own points of view without listening. I think that this problem cant be solved without thourough knowledge of the system EW play. As you can see, ACOL evolved in different countries to different styles (20 years ago crowhurst advised to bid 2S with a west hand like AQxxx, xx, KJx, AKx), now we tend to play it as 8-11 with 5cd spades (at least most people in holland do). But, perhaps that belongs in another group. On the other hand, when you say in a problem that people play 'acol' please remember that over the world acol-ers dont speak the same language anymore. ('acolish' is even more vague to me as system) please keep posting thus. regards, anton >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 19:57:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 19:57:53 +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 TAA09388 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 19:57:45 +1000 Received: from [158.152.129.79] (helo=mamos.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10bi8r-0007FX-0B; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:57:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:56:34 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. References: <01be8dec$a1266980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Anne Jones wrote: > >E/ALL Q32 W N E S > 542 > J943 1H 2D >JT965 KT9 AK74 ..P P 2H P >98 KQ763 P 3D P P >AK6 T Dbl P 3H AP >653 8 Q72 > AJT 3H= NS-140 > Q8752 > AJ84 > > E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors. Negative doubles. > > South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are >weaker players but not beginners. > > N/S claim damage. They claim that the 2H bid was suspect after the >hesitant pass by W and that the 3H bid was even more so. East said that >she had noticed the hesitation but thought her 2H bid was an underbid. >East did not feel that she could pass the double of 3D with her >singleton. > > Your opinions please? > > -------------- > > A good example of how to approach a simple UI problem. > > Was there UI? Yes, West paused before passing. > > Were there LAs to East's bid of 2H? Yes, double is clearly an LA, >being a call that 99% of the player's peers would find [!!!]. >Importantly, pass is not an LA in the modern game. 2H might not be >considered an LA, but we have discussed this at length: we concluded >that it does not matter, though there were three different ways of >deciding the legal basis for this. > > Was 2H suggested over double by the UI? No, a pause over an overcall >tends to show length in diamonds, not guaranteed, but certainly >frequent: this would suggest double rather than 2H since partner might >wish to pass this. So 2H was not suggested over double by the UI and no >adjustment is suitable. > > Were there LAs to East's bid of 3H? Yes, pass is clearly an LA >being a call that 80% of the player's peers would find [!!!]. As >before, 3H might not be considered an LA! > > Was 3H suggested over pass by the UI? No, a pause over an overcall >tends to show length in diamonds, not guaranteed, but certainly >frequent: this would suggest passing the double rather than 3H since it >might be going a long way off and there is no guarantee that 3H is >making. So 3H was not suggested over pass by the UI and no adjustment >is suitable. > > East's bidding may be crazy, but it was not illegal! > > -------------- > >Hirsch Davis wrote: > >>I adjust the auction, but the score remains the same. >> >>I concur that 2H is suspect, but balancing certainly is not, so I change 2H >>to a double. > > 2H may be a number of things, but you cannot change 2H to a double >because double is the call suggested by the UI. > > [s] > >>As far as 3H being suspect, it is, but N/S were not damaged (actually they >>were rescued). > > It may be suspect, but it is not suggested by the UI. You should not >adjust dubious actions after UI *unless* they are suggested by the UI. > > [s] > >>I'm not sure why the word "ethical" is in the header, unless the suggestion >>is that E was deliberately taking advantage of the hesitation. I would be >>very cautious in making that accusation, particularly if E is not a strong >>player. Even so, there are some very strong players who do not understand >>their obligations after a hesitation by partner. Even if she did, there is >>no reason to assume that because we see the Logical Alternatives when it is >>posed to us as a problem, that E must have seen them all in the auction. >>This is a UI problem, but not an ethical one, IMO. > > Agreed. > > -------------- > >Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > >>UI suggests to West a reopening double, but I would have thought there was >>no LA to this double ... until East found one. So 2H stands. >> On the next turn, same UI to East which suggests passing West's double of >>3D. As East didn't choose the bid suggested by UI (Pass, leading to an easy >>200 for his side) but a more unfortunate one, it's not even necessary to >>determine whether ther was LA. Result stands. > > Agreed. > > -------------- > > It would be greatly appreciated if people would use their Reply-To >functions when responding to posts *and* not change the Subject. People >with good software have articles threaded, and some posts change threads >if the linkage is suspect. If any of you have poor software, a friend >of mine loves giving advice on what to get! He is Brian Meadows > and he does understand bridge rulings! > > -------------- > >Roger wrote: > >>The most likely meanings of West's pause include [a] desire to make a >>negative double but can't handle if partner bids the 'wrong suit' and/or [2] >>has the potential values to penalize the overcall and/or [3] has support >>which is not biddable. The effect of the huddle is that it practically >>assures opener that whether they rebid their suit or make a reopening >>double, it will be successful. >> >>The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. The huddle >>suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the call be double >>and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. 2H was selected instead of >>double so 2H was an infraction. For a player that does not make the >>required systemic bid, pass is a LA. Adjust the score to 2D=8 tricks both >>directions. > > I do not see any logic behind the penultimate sentence. Either pass >is an LA, or it isn't, and the player's actual choice does not affect >this. In fact, I do not believe that pass is an LA, nor would I believe >it to be an LA even in NAmerica. > Lots of heat seems to be stirred by this thread FWIW I agree entirely (phew) with David's original posting - some of the postings later in the thread seem to have ignored entirely what he had to say East has chosen strange calls at both turns after her original 1H Double of 2D seems entirely automatic the first time and Pass of 3D equally normal The reasons for these strange choices seem likely to be either that she is a very poor player - or that she is trying desperately to avoid choices suggested by UI and because she is not very experienced is not really aware that because D and Pass are 70% (99%??) actions they would be allowed here in UK and I suspect in the US. The UI she has in her possession suggests different action as David clearly argued. Therefore results stands Mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 26 22:41:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:41:09 +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 WAA09826 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:41:02 +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 IAA17485 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:39:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990426084219.0069fd90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:42:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements In-Reply-To: <008e01be8dde$1dd97800$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <9904221806.aa00531@flash.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:03 PM 4/23/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >You are reading from the Alert Chart that is appended to the 14-page >Alert Procedure, supposedly providing a handy summary. The Chart has >several errors, contradicting what is in the preceding text , and this >is one of them. When there is a contradiction, the text governs. >However, the text itself contradicts itself on this point! > >Page 5: "if you frequently respond 1NT or 2NT to a 1C or 1D opening bid >when you have two or more four-card major suits, the 1NT and 2NT bids >*do require* an Alert." "Two or more four-card major suits"? I assume this should be "one or two". >Page 11: "1C-Pass-1NT or 1D-Pass-1NT: Not Alertable if it...denies a >four card major." > >This same contradiction occurred in the previous version of the ACBL >Alert Procedure, the one that was published in *The Bridge Bulletin* a >few years ago. Page 4 and page 8, if anyone is interested. So where's the contradiction? If you frequently have a major for 1m-1NT, you alert. If you never have a major you don't alert. No contradiction there. Presumably, if you occasionally (but not frequently) have a major, you don't alert. It sounds like the ACBL's justification -- arguable but reasonable -- is that "occasionally" is standard, "frequently" is unusual or uncommon enough to require an alert, "never" is not unusual or uncommon enough to require an alert. One may disagree with those judgments, but they are not inconsistent. 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 Apr 26 22:58:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:58:10 +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 WAA09860 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:58:04 +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 IAA18692 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990426085926.006f1b60@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:59:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Ethical choices & logical alternatives. In-Reply-To: <01be8dec$a1266980$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:51 AM 4/24/99 +0100, Anne wrote: > Q32 All Vul, >Dealer East > 542 > J943 > KT9 >JT965 AK74 >98 KQ763 >AK6 T >653 Q72 > 8 > AJT > Q8752 > AJ84 > > E S W N > 1H 2D ....P P > 2H P P 3D > P P Dbl P > 3H > >Table result 3H making 9 tricks. E/W140. > >E/W system Acol. Weak no trump. 4card majors.negative doubles. > >South and West are both TDs and good players. North and East are weaker >players but not beginners. > >N/S claim damage. They claim that the 2H bid was suspect after the hesitant >pass by W. and that the 3H bid was even moreso. >East said that she had noticed the hesitation but thought her 2H bid was an >underbid. East did not feel that she could pass the double of 3D with her >singleton. > >Your opinions please? Assuming that E-W are playing negative doubles, (a) I would allow 2H. Pass is not an LA with 14 HCP, 3 QT and a D stiff. W's slow pass, if anything, suggests double over 2H. (b) I would allow 3H even more readily. Now it must sound to E like W was huddling with diamonds. Without looking at the hands, W's slow pass of 2D followed by his double of 3D seems to suggest that he held a penalty double of 2D, and makes 3H less attractive. N-S would have a better case if E had passed 3DX and that turned out to be the winning action. Result stands. 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 Apr 26 23:59:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:59:46 +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 XAA10019 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:59:40 +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 JAA22844 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990426100102.006a0390@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:01:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:23 PM 4/25/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) >Nobody vul, N dealer > > > KQJxx > KTx > ATxx > A > > Ax > J9x > Kxxx > xxxx > >(EW Passing) >N S >1S 1nt* >3D** ...3S >3NT P > >*forcing >**game force > >By taking the right view in the heart suit and with clubs 4-4, declarer >makes 3nt. Indeed, he makes 5 when an opponent wrongly pitches a diamond on >the run of spades, but in any case 3nt is unbeatable the way S played it. > >The director was called at the time of the hesitaition (all agreed it was >lengthy), and E summoned him back after the hand. He adjusted to 4S down 1, >based on the idea that the hesitation suggests doubt about spades which N >might otherwise choose to bid, and that a tapping defense will establish >the club winner before N can estabish 10 tricks. > >Because the result ended up immaterial to the final standings, NS chose not >to appeal. But the questions are 1) is the TD's ruling correct and 2) if >so, how should an AC have decided if it had come to that? I agree with the TD's assessment of N's 3NT call, and therefore the adjustment to 4S. (Of course, whether -1 is correct depends on the full deal, which we are not given.) Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 00:05:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 00:05:16 +1000 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA10051 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 00:05:09 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14393) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pFJEa03569 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:53:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <98365202.2455c9c7@aol.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:53:11 EDT Subject: (no subject) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Reply-To: Schoderb@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak and Grattan going off line for maybe 4 or 5 days which we are spending in the Florida Keys. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 01:51:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:51:58 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12584 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:51:47 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA23062 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA10648 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:51:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:51:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904261551.LAA10648@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: Two cards visible > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: David Stevenson > > >> This is another can of worms! The normal way for two cards to be > >> visible is the way described, and now Steve is suggesting this might not > >> be a L58B problem! > >> > >> Fortunately Steve is wrong [Whew!]. Accidentally exposed cards by > >> defenders are played, so once two cards are visible it is automatically > >> a L58B case. > > > >This is OK with me, but would you really rule this way if a player > >plays a card in normal tempo and then a few seconds later (perhaps > >while the player is rearranging his hand) another card falls to the > >table, clearly accidentally? Until now, I'd have treated the first > >card as played and the second as accidentally exposed -- no L58B. > >The only irregularity seems to be the second card. Is this wrong? > > No, but, surely it is just something different from what we have been > discussing? > > As far as I am aware, all we have been discussing is how we treat > penalty cards when two or more cards are played simultaneously. You are > talking of something totally different, when no cards are played > simultaneously. Of course this is different, L58 no longer applies. OK, it seems we agree after all. The 'this' in "Steve is suggesting _this_ might not be a L58B" referred to a specific example someone had asked about. On the facts given in the example, it wasn't clear to me whether the two cards were played simultaneously (L58B) or one was played and a second one subsequently dropped. David's "once two cards are visible..." seems to suggest he thinks it doesn't matter. Now we seem to agree that it does matter just how and when the two exposed cards are revealed. If one is played, and later another is exposed, L58B doesn't apply. I hope we agree that the TD should determine the facts as to just when and how each card was exposed in order to rule whether they were played simultaneously or not. I also said that if there is doubt, the TD should rule L58B, but perhaps that's less obvious under what seems to be the emerging consensus (at least David and Grattan, probably Kojak as well) as to what L58B means. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 02:12:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:12:09 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12811 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:12:00 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA23837 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA10667 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:11:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904261611.MAA10667@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two cards visible X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com (really Grattan) > ++++ If you are referring to definition of a penalty card as major or minor > in whatever way it came about, the water would be very deep and we need to > think. Yes, that's what I had in mind. You have to admit typical "exposed card" rulings would be simpler. > There are real problems that could arise out of the possibilities of chicanery > (K's word) that might be created. We could signal with small cards in our > attempts to 'revoke', for example. So think carefully here. ~Grattan~ > [and the Master K] ++++ Oh, I agree, and I'm sure I haven't thought of everything. (I'm afraid I'm no expert on 'chicanery'.) On the other hand, the "signal" is now UI, and there's always L72B1. On the third hand, there may be a new opportunity for pre-arranged signals. On the fourth hand, people can already do that as long as they "drop" the card instead of revoking with it. I said in the first place that I wasn't sure it's a good idea; only that it might be worth considering. I'll stick with that, and let you folks who are paid the big bucks :-) sort it out. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 02:59:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:59:55 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12889 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:59:48 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-5.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.101]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id MAA20491; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:59:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <372543BC.6BECE681@idt.net> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 21:57:32 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: A Committee in Los Angeles Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday I served on a committee in what seemed a very complicated case, and I wonder what BLML listers would think of it. I'll simply present the situation at first, so that I can hear what you all think. I'll present the committee's decision later, so you can blast us (if it's warranted). North North to deal, NS Vulnerable J Ax KJxxx Kxxxx West East KQTxx A KJ9 Qxxxx Txxx Ax x Jxxxx South 98xxxx Txx Qx AQ the bidding: North East South West 1D 1H 1S X * 1N ** 2C 2S P P 3C P 3H P P X all pass * Alerted as Snapdragon, showing clubs with a heart tolerance ** Alerted as showing a strong (14+ to 17) NT The MI by the East player, was brought to light at the end of the auction, and the director was called at that time. Play proceeded, and the result was +530 for EW. The director's ruling was Avg. + for NS, Avg.- for EW, i.e., +3 imps and -3 imps, respectively. EW appealed the director's ruling. The EW convention card says they play Rosencranz doubles, i.e., a heart honor and a willingness to play at least 2H, maybe more. The east player had been able to sit out a match, and had ostensibly used the time to read the card, but had apparently missed the Rosencranz note. The NS explanation of the 1NT rebid was in accord with their agreements. South admitted quite freely that his double was based on his assumption that North had a strong NT. North felt that he was walled by the MI about the double, since a pass would show spade tolerance and a 2C rebid would be a cue bid of some sort. The NS pair felt that West was influenced by the MI when he failed to double 2S, and that East was hedging his bets somewhat when he didn't bid more aggressively with the east hand. The players were all quite competent, and one of them has considerable International experience. We were informed by the Director that only the last bid by the NOs could be withdrawn, and since the last bid was Pass by north, south was not permitted to withdraw his double. I hope I haven't left out any pertinent information. Enjoy :) Irv Kostal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 04:00:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:00:34 +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 EAA12992 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:00:22 +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 <19990426180016.IUZD6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:00:16 -0700 Message-ID: <3724AAC9.FE70E7A5@home.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:04:57 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Opinions, Please References: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: > > Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) > Nobody vul, N dealer > > KQJxx > KTx > ATxx > A > > Ax > J9x > Kxxx > xxxx > > (EW Passing) > N S > 1S 1nt* > 3D** ...3S > 3NT P > > *forcing > **game force I find this one impossible to adjudicate w/o further knowledge of the methods employed. Can responder's 1NT* include 3cd limit-raises and, if yes, how are they later shown? Can it include a "bad" single-raise and, if yes, how is it later shown? Etc, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 06:32:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:32:31 +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 GAA13755 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:32:22 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveij5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.101]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25719 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:32:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990426163010.00701948@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:30:10 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <3724AAC9.FE70E7A5@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:04 AM 4/26/99 -0700, Jan wrote (and Hirsch in a similar vein): >I find this one impossible to adjudicate w/o further knowledge of the >methods employed. Can responder's 1NT* include 3cd limit-raises and, if >yes, how are they later shown? Can it include a "bad" single-raise and, >if yes, how is it later shown? Etc, etc. > 1) 3D unequivocably game forcing, and so perforce is 3S. 2) No specific systemic agreement about the meaning of 3S. Forcing nt does include limit raises with 3 trumps, but does not include bad spade raises (i.e., simple raise is not played as constructive). Although NS agree to jump rebid with 3-card limit raise after opener's non-forcing rebid, they have not discussed whether that principle applies after opener's forcing rebid, as in the present case. Although it would be nice to have more specific information about the NS methods, we frequently have to rule in situations where the methods are ambiguous. Yes, really good players have worked out these things in advance, but this is a Flight B event, after all. Thanks to those who have responded so far. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 06:51:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:51:31 +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 GAA13839 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:51:26 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveij5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.101]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA30657 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:51:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990426164910.00705f0c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:49:10 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles In-Reply-To: <372543BC.6BECE681@idt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:57 PM 4/26/99 -0700, Irv wrote: I let the result stand. NS might have been damaged by the MI, but IMO North broke the causality of the damage by forgetting his systemic agreement about the meaning of his second round 1nt call. True, N might not have been lured into this error had it not been for the MI, but it was nonetheless exactly the egregious sort of error which is at the heart of the universally accepted Kaplan doctrine. The hand also illustrates David's general principle about looking for UI when MI is the nominal problem, and indeed West has UI that his partner is expecting a club suit. Nevertheless, passing partner's club rebid holding strong three-card heart support is not a LA, so West's bid is allowed. Finally, East's failure to bid more agressively is questionable bridge, perhaps, but of no legal significance, as far as I can see. East had no UI available to him, based on the facts presented, and thus suffered no restrictions on his rights. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 07:11:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA13910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 07:11:11 +1000 Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA13905 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 07:11:05 +1000 Received: from hdavis (216-164-225-30.s284.tnt6.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.225.30]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id RAA07806 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:10:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008201be9029$42ec64c0$1ee1a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <372543BC.6BECE681@idt.net> Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:10:49 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Irwin J Kostal To: BLML Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 12:57 AM Subject: A Committee in Los Angeles > Yesterday I served on a committee in what seemed a very complicated > case, and I wonder what BLML listers would think of it. I'll simply > present the situation at first, so that I can hear what you all think. > I'll present the committee's decision later, so you can blast us (if > it's warranted). > > North North to deal, NS Vulnerable > J > Ax > KJxxx > Kxxxx > West East > KQTxx A > KJ9 Qxxxx > Txxx Ax > x Jxxxx > South > 98xxxx > Txx > Qx > AQ > > the bidding: > North East South West > 1D 1H 1S X * > 1N ** 2C 2S P > P 3C P 3H > P P X all pass > > * Alerted as Snapdragon, showing clubs with a heart tolerance > ** Alerted as showing a strong (14+ to 17) NT > > The MI by the East player, was brought to light at the end of the > auction, and the director was called at that time. Play proceeded, and > the result was +530 for EW. The director's ruling was Avg. + for NS, > Avg.- for EW, i.e., +3 imps and -3 imps, respectively. EW appealed the > director's ruling. > Terrible ruling, for reasons discussed many times on this list. A score must be assigned. > The EW convention card says they play Rosencranz doubles, i.e., a heart > honor and a willingness to play at least 2H, maybe more. The east > player had been able to sit out a match, and had ostensibly used the > time to read the card, but had apparently missed the Rosencranz note. > > The NS explanation of the 1NT rebid was in accord with their agreements. > South admitted quite freely that his double was based on his assumption > that North had a strong NT. North felt that he was walled by the MI > about the double, since a pass would show spade tolerance and a 2C rebid > would be a cue bid of some sort. The NS pair felt that West was > influenced by the MI when he failed to double 2S, and that East was > hedging his bets somewhat when he didn't bid more aggressively with the > east hand. > > The players were all quite competent, and one of them has considerable > International experience. > > We were informed by the Director that only the last bid by the NOs could > be withdrawn, and since the last bid was Pass by north, south was not > permitted to withdraw his double. I hope I haven't left out any > pertinent information. > The Director was correct in not allowing the double to be withdrawn once the doubler's partner had passed. > Enjoy :) > > Irv Kostal > There was MI about the meaning of the double. The MI deprived N of his natural 2C call and did in fact cause a bidding problem, particularly if pass would have shown spade tolerance. OTOH, wouldn't a NT call also show spade tolerance? Given the choice between two calls that might imply spade tolerance, why didn't N choose the one that didn't misdescribe his point range and shape (pass)? E can be forgiven for not leaping around in clubs with the NT call behind the "snapdragon" doubler and no high club honors of his own. He did support the "clubs" twice, in any event. W has a natural preference to Hearts under any circumstances, so passing 3C is not an LA. This brings us to the S double. No high trumps, partner's trump holding likely to be poorly placed, club Q likely to be poorly placed, diamond Q value unknown. Club A the only card carrying its weight. Not my idea of a sound double, particularly at IMPs. If I were a cynical person I would wonder if N/S had looked at the opponent's CC, knew the real meaning of the W double, and were making pushy calls on the assumption that they could get the score reversed due to the MI. I'm not happy about either the 1NT call, or the S double. Still, the 1NT call was made under duress caused by the MI, and it certainly improved the chances of success of the penalty double. I remove the double, roll the score back to 140 E/W. I will confess that I would like to tell N/S that MI is no excuse for bad bridge, so the score stands. However, neither of the bids was sufficiently egregious IMO to break the chain between the MI and the damage, so I give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 07:45:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 07:45:39 +1000 Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA14040 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 07:45:33 +1000 Received: from hdavis (216-164-225-30.s284.tnt6.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.225.30]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id RAA09775 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:45:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00a301be902e$12b37a00$1ee1a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990426163010.00701948@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Opinions, Please Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:45:15 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 4:30 PM Subject: Re: Opinions, Please [snip] > > > 1) 3D unequivocably game forcing, and so perforce is 3S. > 2) No specific systemic agreement about the meaning of 3S. Forcing nt does > include limit raises with 3 trumps, but does not include bad spade raises > (i.e., simple raise is not played as constructive). Although NS agree to > jump rebid with 3-card limit raise after opener's non-forcing rebid, they > have not discussed whether that principle applies after opener's forcing > rebid, as in the present case. > [snip] What did the hesitation suggest? I'm hard pressed to say. Was S worried that N might think 3S could be passed, while he held 10 points and 3 card spade support? Was S thinking about a diamond raise (indicated by the actual hand)? Was S under strength for the original forcing NT call and considering an asystemic pass? One can argue that 3N is suggested by all of the above, as it keeps all of the options open. However, it can also be argued that this is simply good bridge. The preference is ambiguous even without a hesitation. Under these circumstances, even Flight B players know to keep the bidding low, make the most descriptive bid, and let partner make the next move. The most descriptive bid is 3N, showing the outside values. 4S would misrepresent the spade suit, showing six spades (possibly forced with five if a side suit was wide open, which is not the case). Accordingly, I don't think 4S is a LA. Score stands. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 08:45:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 08:45:58 +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 IAA14119 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 08:45:51 +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 <19990426224544.LZXS6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:45:44 -0700 Message-ID: <3724EDB0.29378540@home.com> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:50:24 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles References: <372543BC.6BECE681@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Comments interspersed. Irwin J Kostal wrote: > > Yesterday I served on a committee in what seemed a very complicated > case, and I wonder what BLML listers would think of it. I'll simply > present the situation at first, so that I can hear what you all think. > I'll present the committee's decision later, so you can blast us (if > it's warranted). > > North North to deal, NS Vulnerable > J > Ax > KJxxx > Kxxxx > West East > KQTxx A > KJ9 Qxxxx > Txxx Ax > x Jxxxx > South > 98xxxx > Txx > Qx > AQ > > the bidding: > North East South West > 1D 1H 1S X * > 1N ** 2C 2S P > P 3C P 3H > P P X all pass > > * Alerted as Snapdragon, showing clubs with a heart tolerance > ** Alerted as showing a strong (14+ to 17) NT > > The MI by the East player, was brought to light at the end of the > auction, and the director was called at that time. Play proceeded, > and > the result was +530 for EW. The director's ruling was Avg. + for NS, > Avg.- for EW, i.e., +3 imps and -3 imps, respectively. Noting this was in the US, why doesn't the TD ruling surprise me?!? :-) > EW appealed the > director's ruling. > > The EW convention card says they play Rosencranz doubles, So there was ME. > The NS explanation of the 1NT rebid was in accord with their > agreements. > South admitted quite freely that his double was based on his > assumption > that North had a strong NT. And in that light seems very reasonable to me. > North felt that he was walled by the MI > about the double, since a pass would show spade tolerance and a 2C > rebid > would be a cue bid of some sort. Why would pass show more spade tolerance than 1NT? Would RD have shown 3 cd S? I agree though that without the MI N could have bid 2C, which he could no longer do. However, the 1NT bid seems like a very weird action, and may even be considered "gambling". If he felt "walled" or "fixed" he must still continue to play bridge. Passing would have achieved that, and if that would have led to damage he is in a better position. If this had been a UI problem between N and S, would anyone have considered 1NT an LA (even in LA:-))? I doubt it. > The NS pair felt that West was > influenced by the MI when he failed to double 2S, I agree that double is at least an LA. Does the ME demonstrably suggest pass over double? Let's do the screen-test. W should assume E has a rather wild pattern, in order to bid 2C over the "strong NT" when all W promised is a heart honor. Maybe 0535/0526. This actually shows that also 3H directly over 2S is an LA. The UI suggests that E is merely raising *W's* presumed clubs, maybe a 1543/1534 pattern. In general I'd argue that the more balanced pattern the better chance EW has defending 2S, so I'd conclude that in fact the UI suggest double over pass i.e. pass is OK. On the other hand one could say that the UI suggest pass over 3H, so if anyone wanted to enforce a 3H bid on W, as the only LA not suggested by the UI, I could go along with that. I'm not sure though that this would affect the score though. S still "knows" from N's 1NT bid that opponents only have an 8 card fit, so will presumably still double. Btw, how would it help NS if we force W to double 2S? > and that East was > hedging his bets somewhat when he didn't bid more aggressively with > the east hand. He bid 2C voluntarily, although N showed a strong NT with H and C stops. He competed further with 3C. I think E handled the situation correctly, and remember that E was not the one in possesion of UI anyway. > The players were all quite competent, and one of them has considerable > International experience. > > We were informed by the Director that only the last bid by the NOs > could > be withdrawn, and since the last bid was Pass by north, south was not > permitted to withdraw his double. I hope I haven't left out any > pertinent information. In conclusion, I feel the 1NT bid broke the link between any eventual infraction and the damage. Subsequent, not consequent. Tableresult reinstated for both sides. I could be convinced by arguments that maybe there should be some adjustment for EW, particularly in acbl where EW's confusion about their agreements put NS in a situation they didn't deserve, ie some "CD" thing. Could one give NS -530 and EW Avg-? If L12C3 is in effect, maybe EW could get something between +530 and +140? I'm looking fwd to others' comments on this interesting ruling. What I feel quite strongly about is that, whichever angle one approaches this from, NS get to keep -530. I'd write a dissenting opinion in any other ruling. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 10:11:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:11:32 +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 KAA14295 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:11:24 +1000 Received: from p38s02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.57] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10bvT2-0002pc-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:11:17 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:13:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01be9042$b75e3b80$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: Irwin J Kostal To: BLML Date: Monday, April 26, 1999 6:33 PM Subject: A Committee in Los Angeles >Yesterday I served on a committee in what seemed a very complicated >case, and I wonder what BLML listers would think of it. I'll simply >present the situation at first, so that I can hear what you all think. >I'll present the committee's decision later, so you can blast us (if >it's warranted). > > North North to deal, NS Vulnerable > J > Ax > KJxxx > Kxxxx >West East >KQTxx A >KJ9 Qxxxx >Txxx Ax >x Jxxxx > South > 98xxxx > Txx > Qx > AQ > >the bidding: >North East South West >1D 1H 1S X * >1N ** 2C 2S P >P 3C P 3H >P P X all pass > >* Alerted as Snapdragon, showing clubs with a heart tolerance >** Alerted as showing a strong (14+ to 17) NT > >The MI by the East player, was brought to light at the end of the >auction, and the director was called at that time. Play proceeded, and >the result was +530 for EW. The director's ruling was Avg. + for NS, >Avg.- for EW, i.e., +3 imps and -3 imps, respectively. EW appealed the >director's ruling. > >The EW convention card says they play Rosencranz doubles, i.e., a heart >honor and a willingness to play at least 2H, maybe more. The east >player had been able to sit out a match, and had ostensibly used the >time to read the card, but had apparently missed the Rosencranz note. > >The NS explanation of the 1NT rebid was in accord with their agreements. >South admitted quite freely that his double was based on his assumption >that North had a strong NT. North felt that he was walled by the MI >about the double, since a pass would show spade tolerance and a 2C rebid >would be a cue bid of some sort. The NS pair felt that West was >influenced by the MI when he failed to double 2S, and that East was >hedging his bets somewhat when he didn't bid more aggressively with the >east hand. > >The players were all quite competent, and one of them has considerable >International experience. > >We were informed by the Director that only the last bid by the NOs could >be withdrawn, and since the last bid was Pass by north, south was not >permitted to withdraw his double. I hope I haven't left out any >pertinent information. Yes , I think that is right... Law21B1 > >Enjoy :) > >Irv Kostal Is there MI = Yes. Is there UI = Yes. West has UI from the explanation of his double. Did the MI result in damage = IMO Yes. North would have bid 2C if he had not been given MI. Did the recipient of the UI have an LA to the bid made. IMO Double by West is an LA to Pass over 2S. Pass is a bid which may be suggested by the UI. law12C2 ruling had neither the MI or the UI ocurred the most unfavourable result which I consider to be at all probable is for E/W 3H= +140, the most favourable result which I consider to be likely is for N/S 3H= -140. why I wonder did the TD use Law 12C1 to adjust. Law 21B3 tells the TD to adjust but it does not say to use 12C1 rather than 12C2. I understand that 12C3 does not apply in Los Angeles so I would expect the AC to award +/-140. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 10:56:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:56:10 +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 KAA14396 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:56:03 +1000 Received: from pf3s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.244] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10bwAH-0002yd-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:55:57 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Opinions, Please Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:57:46 +0100 Message-ID: <01be9048$f6c1e5a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, April 26, 1999 3:50 AM Subject: Opinions, Please >Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: > >Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) >Nobody vul, N dealer > > > KQJxx > KTx > ATxx > A > > Ax > J9x > Kxxx > xxxx > >(EW Passing) >N S >1S 1nt* >3D** ...3S >3NT P > >*forcing >**game force > >By taking the right view in the heart suit and with clubs 4-4, declarer >makes 3nt. Indeed, he makes 5 when an opponent wrongly pitches a diamond on >the run of spades, but in any case 3nt is unbeatable the way S played it. > >The director was called at the time of the hesitaition (all agreed it was >lengthy), and E summoned him back after the hand. He adjusted to 4S down 1, >based on the idea that the hesitation suggests doubt about spades which N >might otherwise choose to bid, and that a tapping defense will establish >the club winner before N can estabish 10 tricks. > >Because the result ended up immaterial to the final standings, NS chose not >to appeal. But the questions are 1) is the TD's ruling correct and 2) if >so, how should an AC have decided if it had come to that? > >Thanks, > >Mike Dennis Please, what is the maximum the 1NT could show? Forcing for one round, and over 1S, I presume any random 9 count up to ? I read 3D as 16+ and game forcing opposite a min. (9) If my surmise is correct I think that even when S bids 3S, confirming his minimum, but with S support, (Hx or 3 cards) the bid which N would make absent the hesitation is at least 4S. Could S hold xxx AQx QJx xxxx for his 3S bid..Yes! or Ax AJx QJxx xxxx Yes, but he would have taken longer to bid it. Nervous of 3NT and not wishing to go to game with only Ax opposite a possibly broken S suit. I think 4S is a LA to 3NT, and I think 3NT is suggested by the tank. On balance I do not think it is a LA to investigate slam possibilities, but that is IMO a close decision, depending on big the range of the 1NT. N does only have 5 losers for his one level opening. (but this is in the land of 5 card majors isn't it:-)) I would rule it to 4S, making however many tricks the dist. of the outstanding cards allow. (does "tapping" mean forcing?) It would appear that as the Clubs are 4/4 and he played the hearts for one loser in NTs he should lose one H and 2D in a 4S contract. What was the fiendish trump break that stopped this? I cannot understand those who say 4S is not a LA. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 11:46:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:46:40 +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 LAA14484 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:46:34 +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 10bwx8-00079N-0A; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 01:46:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:31:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: David desJardins From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dummy rules OK? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There has been an interesting thread on RGB, and David desJardins, whose comments on the Laws are always interesting, has expressed a view. Perhaps people here would like to express their opinion since he has worried me slightly! For those who read RGB I have changed the story somewhat to make the relevant point. A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this player's hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal revoke penalty be applied? cc David desJardins -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 11:52:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:52:33 +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 LAA14506 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:52:22 +1000 Received: from john ([208.153.97.140]) by www.networksgy.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA28414; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 21:47:18 +0300 (GMT) Message-ID: <000301be9047$d1c24480$8c6199d0@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, CACBF Chief Tournament Director" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <199904151823.OAA02313@cfa183.harvard.edu> <37171067.7CC5B96E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:19:38 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: | In general, I agree with what Jeremy wrote (as quoted by | Steve) | | Steve Willner wrote: | > | > > From: Jeremy Rickard | > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in [falsecard] situations is a | > > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a | > > break in tempo. | > | > I'm not sure whether Jeremy and I disagree or not. | > | > If the player can demonstrate a reason for believing one card will | > be more deceptive than the other, then I agree it's a genuine bridge | > problem. This is the "Moriarty" case. | > | > If, on the other hand, the player has only a vague feeling that one | > card or another might be more deceptive and cannot demonstrate a bridge | > reason for preferring one or the other, there is no bridge problem. | > This we might call the "which card of equals" case, although of course | > it applies more generally. | > | > Finally, thinking about "Where did I park the car?" or which card to | > play from a singleton never qualifies as a bridge problem. | | Jeremy's statement is true, but one should not go too far in | it. | | When a player, over declarer's lead of the Queen, with Ace | Jack on the table, starts thinking about which of the small | ones he will falsecard with, Jeremy's statement is no longer | true. | | There has to be a certain dosage to all these principles. Seems to me that you are coming around to the idea that when you are not going to influence the trick, what do you have to think about. Principles is something we all must play under and one of the most important is fair play. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 11:55:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:55:11 +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 LAA14525 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:55:05 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA03842 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002701be9050$f827e4a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <9904221806.aa00531@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990426084219.0069fd90@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:54:32 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:03 PM 4/23/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > >You are reading from the Alert Chart that is appended to the 14-page > >Alert Procedure, supposedly providing a handy summary. The Chart has > >several errors, contradicting what is in the preceding text , and this > >is one of them. When there is a contradiction, the text governs. > >However, the text itself contradicts itself on this point! > > > >Page 5: "if you frequently respond 1NT or 2NT to a 1C or 1D opening bid > >when you have two or more four-card major suits, the 1NT and 2NT bids > >*do require* an Alert." > > "Two or more four-card major suits"? I assume this should be "one or two". Yes, sorry, I was in a hurry. > > >Page 11: "1C-Pass-1NT or 1D-Pass-1NT: Not Alertable if it...denies a > >four card major." > > > >This same contradiction occurred in the previous version of the ACBL > >Alert Procedure, the one that was published in *The Bridge Bulletin* a > >few years ago. Page 4 and page 8, if anyone is interested. > > So where's the contradiction? If you frequently have a major for 1m-1NT, > you alert. If you never have a major you don't alert. No contradiction > there. Why snip the contradictory statement??? Which is: Page 5: "if you frequently respond 1NT or 2NT to a 1C or 1D opening bid when you have two or more four-card major suits, the 1NT and 2NT bids *do require* an Alert." You are overlooking the "in-between" case, which is that you have a major sometimes, but not frequently, when you rebid 1NT (as I do). Page 11 implies (really stronger than that) this is Alertable because 1NT does not deny a four-card major. Page 5 says no Alert, because it is not done frequently. > Presumably, if you occasionally (but not frequently) have a major, > you don't alert. You are presuming in a logical fashion, but this is a presumption, not what you can back up with contradictory pages 5 and 11. >It sounds like the ACBL's justification -- arguable but > reasonable -- is that "occasionally" is standard, "frequently" is unusual > or uncommon enough to require an alert, "never" is not unusual or uncommon > enough to require an alert. One may disagree with those judgments, but > they are not inconsistent. > "Sounds like" is your inference, and mine, but not what the inconsistent Alert Procedure says. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 13:20:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:20:50 +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 NAA14673 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:20:44 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehr3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.99]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18806 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990426231830.0070644c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:18:30 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:31 AM 4/27/99 +0100, DWS wrote: > > There has been an interesting thread on RGB, and David desJardins, >whose comments on the Laws are always interesting, has expressed a view. >Perhaps people here would like to express their opinion since he has >worried me slightly! > > For those who read RGB I have changed the story somewhat to make the >relevant point. > > A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this >player's hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy >points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal >revoke penalty be applied? > > It seems pretty straightforward. Dummy may not look at the opponents' hands (L43A2c), and is subject to a PP for doing so. But he may call attention to an irregularity at the conclusion of play (L42B3), and nothing in the Laws stipulates any provision for failing to award the normal revoke penalty, if a revoke has occurred. Thus apply the revoke penalty and award dummy whatever PP seems appropriate under the circumstances (it would feel about right if these two balanced out). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 14:16:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:16:53 +1000 Received: from nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au (nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au [147.109.36.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA14808 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:16:48 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:19:45 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:19:17 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Half-right, I believe Mike. Have you considered law 43B3? =22If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is = the first=20 to draw attention to a defender=27s irregularity, no penalty shall be = imposed=22 So the normal revoke penalty does not apply. However, as the second part of 43B3 says, the director needs to establish equity by awarding an = adjusted score if the defenders have benefitted directly through the revoke. Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au >>> =22Michael S. Dennis=22 27/04/99 13:18:30 >>> At 02:31 AM 4/27/99 +0100, DWS wrote: > > There has been an interesting thread on RGB, and David desJardins, >whose comments on the Laws are always interesting, has expressed a view. >Perhaps people here would like to express their opinion since he has >worried me slightly=21 > > For those who read RGB I have changed the story somewhat to make the >relevant point. > > A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this >player=27s hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy >points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal >revoke penalty be applied? > > It seems pretty straightforward. Dummy may not look at the opponents=27 = hands (L43A2c), and is subject to a PP for doing so. But he may call attention = to an irregularity at the conclusion of play (L42B3), and nothing in the Laws stipulates any provision for failing to award the normal revoke penalty, = if a revoke has occurred. Thus apply the revoke penalty and award dummy whatever PP seems appropriate under the circumstances (it would feel about right if these two balanced out). Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 14:38:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:38:41 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14851 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:38:35 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10bzdb-000MYw-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:38:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 05:21:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > There has been an interesting thread on RGB, and David desJardins, >whose comments on the Laws are always interesting, has expressed a view. >Perhaps people here would like to express their opinion since he has >worried me slightly! > > For those who read RGB I have changed the story somewhat to make the >relevant point. > > A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this >player's hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy >points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal >revoke penalty be applied? > > >cc David desJardins > Funnily enough Steve Noble, who initiated the original thread, asked me about it this evening. I opined as follows: Law 9A2b1 Dummy may not call attention to any irregularity during the play but may do so after the play of the hand is concluded. Law 42B3 He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded. Law 43A2c Dummy may not on his own initiative look at the face of a card in either defender's hand Law 43B3 If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed. This is a bit complex but I read this as follows: Law 9 gives dummy absolute rights. Law 43 limits his rights during the play of the hand. The heading of the section starting with Law 41 is "PLAY" So clearly if defender shows dummy his hand (carelessly or inadvertently) and indeed dummy doesn't even need to try not to look then 43A2c is not violated, and therefore Law 43B3 is not brought into play, in which case the revoke penalty must be paid. And further and this is the complexity, IMO, once play ceases dummy is no longer dummy, (it is no longer "PLAY") so dummy having "intentionally" looked at a defender's hand and said "You've revoked" during play loses his rights to penalise, but can still do so after the hand is complete, and retains his Law 9 right. *Otherwise* Law 9 cannot be obeyed, and that one is general, and not restricted just to play. I think DdJ hasn't read the Laws well enough this time to get away with being as dogmatic as he always is. I score this one DWS 1, DdJ 0. Mind you it hurts because I rule in DWS's favour about as often as there's a solar eclipse in Merseyside. 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 Apr 27 15:14:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:14:31 +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 PAA14941 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:14:26 +1000 Received: from localhost (sci-lsk@localhost) by barra.jcu.edu.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA07636; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:14:22 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:14:22 +1000 (EST) From: Laurie Kelso To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: David desJardins Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > > There has been an interesting thread on RGB, and David desJardins, > whose comments on the Laws are always interesting, has expressed a view. > Perhaps people here would like to express their opinion since he has > worried me slightly! > > For those who read RGB I have changed the story somewhat to make the > relevant point. > > A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this > player's hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy > points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal > revoke penalty be applied? This scenario seems to be covered adequately by Law 43B3. Hence the normal penalty no longer applies, but we can still adjust if the revoking side gained via the infraction. Not being a RGB reader, I am not sure what the catch is. Maybe there is doubt about whether the concept of a dummy still exists after the conclusion of the play period? Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 16:04:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:04:53 +1000 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA14998 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:04:46 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com (14461) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pTBa005754 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 00:20:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7a1cadba.2456915c@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 00:04:44 EDT Subject: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Reply-To: KRAllison@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm forwarding this question at the request of the Compuserve Bridge Forum. I'll be interested to see what you all think :-) Karen ============================================================= n a recent club game, I overcalled a heart. My lho got the contract and my partner was on lead. She lead a heart to the dummies K x. The declarer played low and I put in the J from Ace, Q, J. I returned the Ace to the King. When the declarer got to the dummy,his partner separated the cards and showed a k 10. The declared said, Oh, play the 10. He then returned the king for a discard from his hand and made an unmakeable contract. I felt cheated, but the director said I was responsible for the number of cards in the dummy and should have known there was a card missing and it could be a heart. What do you have to say about the ruling? Thank you. rosemary From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 16:32:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:32:25 +1000 Received: from mail200.image.dk (root@mail200.image.dk [194.234.58.156]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA15072 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:32:15 +1000 Received: from mail.wol.dk (mail011.image.dk [212.54.64.152] (may be forged)) by mail200.image.dk (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA29933 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 08:31:45 +0200 Received: (qmail 13703 invoked by uid 0); 27 Apr 1999 06:32:13 -0000 Received: from 41.ppp1-21.image.dk (212.54.67.105) by mail010.image.dk with SMTP; 27 Apr 1999 06:32:13 -0000 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:32:01 GMT Message-ID: <372a564a.2813806@mail.image.dk> References: <372543BC.6BECE681@idt.net> In-Reply-To: <372543BC.6BECE681@idt.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail200.image.dk id IAA29933 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon, 26 Apr 1999 skrev Irwin J Kostal: >honor and a willingness to play at least 2H, maybe more. The east >player had been able to sit out a match, and had ostensibly used the >time to read the card, but had apparently missed the Rosencranz note. In that case it is doubtful whether an agreement on the double exists at all. However there is MI whatever view one takes. >The NS explanation of the 1NT rebid was in accord with their agreements. >South admitted quite freely that his double was based on his assumption >that North had a strong NT. No problem there. >North felt that he was walled by the MI about the double, since a pass >would show spade tolerance and a 2C rebid would be a cue bid of some sor= t. He was walled by (the lack in) his own system - in a situation created by MI. >The NS pair felt that West was influenced by the MI when he failed to do= uble 2S, I (with limited experience) would say that a double might well be an attempt to wake up partner (wouldn't it show spades?). I feel that there is no damage *caused* by the MI, but I do not know enough to be certain. >We were informed by the Director that only the last bid by the NOs could >be withdrawn, and since the last bid was Pass by north, south was not >permitted to withdraw his double. I can understand the ruling of the TD, but this information is simply wrong. L 21B1: Until the end of the auction period (see Law=A017E), a player may, without penalty, change a call ... MI ... L 21B3: When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score ... Bertel --=20 http://image.dk/~blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 16:34:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:34:34 +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 QAA15089 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:34:29 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA14611 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:34:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004501be9078$00644880$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990426231830.0070644c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 23:34:12 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > There has been an interesting thread on RGB, and David desJardins, > > whose comments on the Laws are always interesting, has expressed a > > view. > >Perhaps people here would like to express their opinion since he has > >worried me slightly! > > > > For those who read RGB I have changed the story somewhat to make > > the relevant point. > > > > A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this > >player's hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy > >points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal > >revoke penalty be applied? > > > > > It seems pretty straightforward. Dummy may not look at the opponents' > hands (L43A2c), and is subject to a PP for doing so. But he may call > attention to an irregularity at the conclusion of play (L42B3), and nothing in the > Laws stipulates any provision for failing to award the normal revoke > penalty, if a revoke has occurred. Huh? Please read a little further: L43B3. If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed. If the defenders benefit directly through their irregularity, the director shall award an adjusted score to both sides to restore equity. That seems pretty straightforward. I hope no one thinks that "no penalty shall be imposed" refers to dummy's action rather than to the irregularity! > Thus apply the revoke penalty and award dummy > whatever PP seems appropriate under the circumstances (it would feel > about right if these two balanced out). No revoke penalty, and no balancing. How could they balance out anyway, unless this is a team game? It would feel about right if the TD adjusts the score "to both sides to restore equity" as L43B3 requires, which could mean no change to the table result if the revoke did not directly cause damage. In any case L43B1 says that dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 (the PP Law). In 1997 L43B3 replaced the 1987/1990 L43B21, which also said no penalty but did not include provisions for restoring equity. Note that an adjustment requires that the defenders benefit *directly* from the irregularity. If declarer, perhaps aware of the revoke, makes some outlandish play in the belief that failure will not cost anything, then any damage incurred thereby would not be a direct cause of the revoke, and there may be no score adjustment. John Probst writes: > And further and this is the complexity, IMO, once play ceases dummy is > no longer dummy, (it is no longer "PLAY") so dummy having > "intentionally" looked at a defender's hand and said "You've revoked" > during play loses his rights to penalise, but can still do so after the > hand is complete, and retains his Law 9 right. >* Otherwise* Law 9 cannot be obeyed, and that one is general, and not > restricted just to play. To consider that L43B3 does not apply to the "ex-dummy" is splitting hairs to the atom-splitting extreme. L9 permits the ex-dummy to call attention to an irregularity, as does L42B3, and then L43B3 applies. Law 9 is obeyed, and so is L43B3. To say otherwise is to say that dummy can exchange hands with declarer, walk around the table during the play, examine both defenders' hands, and then merely by waiting until the last card is played (when he is no longer dummy) can call attention to an irregularity that he has observed and have a penalty imposed. Uh-uh. L42B3: He [dummy is the antecedent] may call attention to an irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded. This should make it obvious that L42/L43 apply to an "ex-dummy." Otherwise L42B3 makes no sense, since there is no dummy after play is concluded. Besides, the definition of "dummy" in the Definitions section is "declarer's partner." This is clearly the meaning of the word as used in L42/L43. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 17:04:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:04:23 +1000 Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA15187 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:04:16 +1000 Received: from hdavis (209-122-252-184.s438.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.252.184]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id DAA13856; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 03:04:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007a01be907c$213f65e0$b8fc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 03:04:00 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 12:21 AM Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? [snip] > > This is a bit complex but I read this as follows: > > Law 9 gives dummy absolute rights. OK > Law 43 limits his rights during the play of the hand. The heading of the > section starting with Law 41 is "PLAY" > OK > So clearly if defender shows dummy his hand (carelessly or > inadvertently) and indeed dummy doesn't even need to try not to look > then 43A2c is not violated, and therefore Law 43B3 is not brought into > play, in which case the revoke penalty must be paid. > OK > And further and this is the complexity, IMO, once play ceases dummy is > no longer dummy, (it is no longer "PLAY") so dummy having > "intentionally" looked at a defender's hand and said "You've revoked" > during play loses his rights to penalise, but can still do so after the > hand is complete, and retains his Law 9 right. > Not so OK. Yes, the play is over and there is no more Dummy. My interpretation: When Dummy takes one of the actions stated in Law 43.2, he has knowledge about the hand to which he is not entitled. Once he has that knowledge, he has forfeited certain rights, regardless of whether or not play has ended. He can still draw attention to a penalty, but only to restore equity, not to exact a penalty. Since Dummy cannot draw attention to an infraction until the hand is over, it makes no sense at all to limit Law 43 to the period during the play only. L43A.1.b is very specific: Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play. It does not allow exception. So, the situation referred to in L43B3 can only occur legally after play is completed. It makes no sense to have L43.B.3 as a separate Law, if it only applies during a violation of L43.A.1.b. > *Otherwise* Law 9 cannot be obeyed, and that one is general, and not > restricted just to play. > Law 9 gives Dummy the right to call attention to the infraction, which is not in dispute. Law 9 says nothing about the penalty imposed after Dummy does so. There is no conflict between Law 9 and Law 43.B.3. One refer's to Dummy's right to call attention to an infraction, while the other regulates the penalty imposed when Dummy does so. These are not the same thing, and mitigating the penalty imposed after an infraction in no way violates Dummy's right to call attention to the infraction at the proper time. > I think DdJ hasn't read the Laws well enough this time to get away with > being as dogmatic as he always is. I score this one DWS 1, DdJ 0. > IMO David desJardins has read the Laws very well indeed. > Mind you it hurts because I rule in DWS's favour about as often as > there's a solar eclipse in Merseyside. > > Cheers John > -- Regards, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 17:37:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:37:24 +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 RAA15259 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:37:18 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA10243 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 08:36:42 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 27 Apr 99 08:36 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Opinions, Please 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: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> "Michael S. Dennis" > > Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: > > Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) > Nobody vul, N dealer > > > KQJxx > KTx > ATxx > A > > Ax > J9x > Kxxx > xxxx > > (EW Passing) > N S > 1S 1nt* > 3D** ...3S > 3NT P > > *forcing > **game force It would be nice to know the range of possible hands that is encompassed by 3S but let's assume 3S does cover a multitude of sins and that the actual hand is in that range (obviously close to some other bid but god knows what). Let us further assume that the UI made available was extremely accurate and suggested "I hold Ax,J9x,Kxxx,xxxx" - quite uncanny! Looking at the North hand in this context I want to bid 4S, all I need (absent really bad breaks) is HQ onside and I'm home - failing that even breaks in the pointed suits will give me the contract. Absent the UI 3N/4S seem like LAs, reading the UI accurately suggests 4S, North chose 3NT - Result stands. I wouldn't criticise a TD who adjusted at the table. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 18:45:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:45:40 +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 SAA15339 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:45:34 +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; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:45:22 +0100 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 JAA04166 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:44:53 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION In-Reply-To: <000301be9047$d1c24480$8c6199d0@john> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:42:05 +0100 (GMT Daylight 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 "John A. Mac Gregor wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > | In general, I agree with what Jeremy wrote (as quoted by > | Steve) > | > | Steve Willner wrote: > | > > | > > From: Jeremy Rickard > | > > (c) Therefore deciding which card to play in [falsecard] situations is > a > | > > genuine bridge problem, and therefore a valid reason for a > | > > break in tempo. [snip] > | Jeremy's statement is true, but one should not go too far in > | it. > | > | When a player, over declarer's lead of the Queen, with Ace > | Jack on the table, starts thinking about which of the small > | ones he will falsecard with, Jeremy's statement is no longer > | true. > | > | There has to be a certain dosage to all these principles. > > Seems to me that you are coming around to the idea that when you are not > going to influence the trick, what do you have to think about. What do you mean by "influence the trick"? In some sense, *any* choice of cards influences the trick -- after all, a trick with a two in is different from a trick with a three in -- but I don't think this is what you mean. If you mean something like "affects which side wins the trick and in which hand", then I don't think you'll find much support for the idea that deciding which suit to discard or deciding whether to unblock is nothing to think about! I presume you mean something in between, but what exactly? > Principles is something we all must > play under and one of the most important is fair play. True, but uncontroversial. If we can agree on what *is* fair play, then I'm sure we'll all agree we should do it. :) --------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/majcr.html Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 --------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 19:25:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA15442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:25:22 +1000 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 TAA15437 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:25:15 +1000 Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (mailhost.tudelft.nl) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #D3521) with ESMTP id <0FAU001I3CTQOO@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:25:02 +0200 (MET DST) 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 LAA07834 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:24:57 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from angad.tn.tudelft.nl by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl with SMTP (16.6/15.6) id AA29752; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:22:34 +0200 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:24:01 +0200 From: Evert Angad-Gaur Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <37259041.33657F7F@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this > player's hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy > points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal > revoke penalty be applied? I think that the bridgerules are made to help in case things go wrong. (besides decribing how the normal procedures are). Thinking about playing bridge dummy has not much rights. The declarer must play "without" inteference of dummy. But after play ceases the dummy is not a "dummy" more , he get his rights back and may try to get the best result for his side as possible. With this in mind I rule as follows. 1. Dummy must not look in the cards of his oppenents. So we can give PP. 2. After play the dummy ceases to be dummy and have his rights according to for example rule 9. And then he is entitled to point to the revoke and if there was a revoke we must apply rule 61 ,62,63 and 64. Evert. -- S.E.Angad-Gaur, tel.: 015-2786150 email:evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl fax.: 015-2781694 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 20:54:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:54:27 +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 UAA15675 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:54:18 +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 10c5VD-0001A7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:54:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:43:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling on Bidding Requirements References: <9904221806.aa00531@flash.irvine.com> <3.0.1.32.19990426084219.0069fd90@pop.cais.com> <002701be9050$f827e4a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002701be9050$f827e4a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> Presumably, if you occasionally (but not frequently) have a major, >> you don't alert. >You are presuming in a logical fashion, but this is a presumption, not >what you can back up with contradictory pages 5 and 11. Perhaps an interpretation would be a better word. If you have contradictory regulations, then you can either throw your hands up in the air, and say "Quel horreur!" or you can reconcile them as best you can. Eric seems to have done the latter which tends to be more useful. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I would like to also comment on my father's geography, he would not know where to start looking for table one yet alone to be able to find it. In fact if he were drawn there for the 1st match he would go home satisfied at getting to table one. Richard Probst (His longer suffering son) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 20:54:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:54:28 +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 UAA15676 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:54:18 +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 10c5VC-00058C-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:54:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:43:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles References: <372543BC.6BECE681@idt.net> <372a564a.2813806@mail.image.dk> In-Reply-To: <372a564a.2813806@mail.image.dk> 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 Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Mon, 26 Apr 1999 skrev Irwin J Kostal: >>We were informed by the Director that only the last bid by the NOs could >>be withdrawn, and since the last bid was Pass by north, south was not >>permitted to withdraw his double. >I can understand the ruling of the TD, but this information is >simply wrong. > >L 21B1: Until the end of the auction period (see Law=A017E), a >player may, without penalty, change a call ... MI ... L21B1 continues ... , provided that his partner has not subsequently called. The TD was correct. --=20 David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I would like to also comment on my father's geography, he would not know where to start looking for table one yet alone to be able to find it. In fact if he were drawn there for the 1st match he would go home satisfied at getting to table one. Richard Probst (His longer suffering son) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 27 21:16:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:16:10 +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 VAA15822 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:16:04 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA29478 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:15:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 27 Apr 99 12:15 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? 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: <3.0.1.32.19990426231830.0070644c@pop.mindspring.com> "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > It seems pretty straightforward. Dummy may not look at the opponents' > hands (L43A2c), and is subject to a PP for doing so. There are two common (IME) situations where a PP should not apply. 1. Dummy enquires with a polite "May I?" and the defender shows his hand. 2. Defenders "turn away" from declarer such that a dummy looking at the table (necessary for card pulling duties) cannot help but see the hands so exposed. These behaviours are deeply ingrained in all the various bridge games I play in, they make the game more human and, providing dummy makes no attempt to interfere during play, cause no harm. I do not believe that either of the situations above should be considered breaches of L43A2c. (Obviously there is sufficient latitude in the wording of the laws to rule either way in these cases so perhaps SO guidance is the key). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 00:02:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:02:22 +1000 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 AAA16342 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:02:16 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10c8R7-0004kl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:02:09 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990427155905.00ad2380@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:59:05 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <01be9048$f6c1e5a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:57 27-04-99 +0100, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael S. Dennis >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Monday, April 26, 1999 3:50 AM >Subject: Opinions, Please > > >>Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: >> >>Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) >>Nobody vul, N dealer >> >> >> KQJxx >> KTx >> ATxx >> A >> >> Ax >> J9x >> Kxxx >> xxxx >> >>(EW Passing) >>N S >>1S 1nt* >>3D** ...3S >>3NT P >> >>*forcing >>**game force >> >>By taking the right view in the heart suit and with clubs 4-4, declarer >>makes 3nt. Indeed, he makes 5 when an opponent wrongly pitches a diamond on >>the run of spades, but in any case 3nt is unbeatable the way S played it. >> >>The director was called at the time of the hesitaition (all agreed it was >>lengthy), and E summoned him back after the hand. He adjusted to 4S down 1, >>based on the idea that the hesitation suggests doubt about spades which N >>might otherwise choose to bid, and that a tapping defense will establish >>the club winner before N can estabish 10 tricks. >> >>Because the result ended up immaterial to the final standings, NS chose not >>to appeal. But the questions are 1) is the TD's ruling correct and 2) if >>so, how should an AC have decided if it had come to that? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Mike Dennis > > > >Please, what is the maximum the 1NT could show? Forcing for one round, and >over 1S, I presume any random 9 count up to ? >I read 3D as 16+ and game forcing opposite a min. (9) >If my surmise is correct I think that even when S bids 3S, confirming his >minimum, but with S support, (Hx or 3 cards) the bid which N would make >absent the hesitation is at least 4S. >Could S hold >xxx >AQx >QJx >xxxx for his 3S bid..Yes! > That depends on their agreements. If they play forcing NT, then this type of hand has a 2S bid (8-10 +3cd spades). Usually !NT is 6-12 HCP. If they also play bergen raises, then 4cd support is bid with 3C,D. so in this bidding sequence, S promises with 3S (without thinking) a hand with probably 2 spades and about 6-8 HCP. (otherwise he should have bid 3NT himself probably) 3D should be GF indeed. (btw this is my style of playing forcing NT, dont know if the NS pair play it this way also - statement to avoid flames from Jan ) >or > >Ax >AJx >QJxx >xxxx Yes, but he would have taken longer to bid it. Nervous of 3NT >and not wishing to go to game with only Ax opposite a possibly broken S >suit. > >I think 4S is a LA to 3NT, and I think 3NT is suggested by the tank. On >balance I do not think it is a LA to investigate slam possibilities, but >that is IMO a close decision, depending on big the range of the 1NT. >N does only have 5 losers for his one level opening. (but this is in the >land of 5 card majors isn't it:-)) > >I would rule it to 4S, making however many tricks the dist. of the >outstanding cards allow. (does "tapping" mean forcing?) >It would appear that as the Clubs are 4/4 and he played the hearts for one >loser in NTs he should lose one H and 2D in a 4S contract. What was the >fiendish trump break that stopped this? > >I cannot understand those who say 4S is not a LA. > As TD that is probably correct i think, but i wonder what was S thinking about. regards, anton >Anne > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 00:07:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:07:50 +1000 Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA16372 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:07:43 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (14426) by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id dZMUa08466; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:07:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <34c1c905.24571e7e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:06:54 EDT Subject: Re: Opinions, Please To: msd@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 246 Reply-To: RCraigH@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/25/99 10:26:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: << Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) Nobody vul, N dealer KQJxx KTx ATxx A Ax J9x Kxxx xxxx (EW Passing) N S 1S 1nt* 3D** ...3S 3NT P *forcing **game force By taking the right view in the heart suit and with clubs 4-4, declarer makes 3nt. Indeed, he makes 5 when an opponent wrongly pitches a diamond on the run of spades, but in any case 3nt is unbeatable the way S played it. The director was called at the time of the hesitaition (all agreed it was lengthy), and E summoned him back after the hand. He adjusted to 4S down 1, based on the idea that the hesitation suggests doubt about spades which N might otherwise choose to bid, and that a tapping defense will establish the club winner before N can estabish 10 tricks. Because the result ended up immaterial to the final standings, NS chose not to appeal. But the questions are 1) is the TD's ruling correct and 2) if so, how should an AC have decided if it had come to that? Thanks, Mike Dennis >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- 1) TD ruling is incorrect, but easily understood in the rush to make a decision on the spot during play. 2) AC should reverse this ruling. The hesitation leads to a UI analysis. The law forbids[law copied below] choosing from among logical alternatives one that has been suggested by the hesitation, but what might that have been? The hesitation suggests uncertainty, and the bid made, within the context of a game forcing auction, seems to have kept three options alive, spades, diamonds, and notrump. The bid, absent the hesitation, suggests the same thing as the hesitation. This part of the UI analysis does not afford redress, in my view. No one bid was suggested by the hesitation. The case might be different if the bid chosen was more committal, yet, through hesitation, suggested an alternative. For example, suppose that, after the hesitation, the call had been 3NT. Then the defenders would be in a stonger position to claim damage, since passing 3NT would be normal after an in-tempo call. The hesitation before the [hypothetical 3NT call] clearly suggests that an alternative could be better. Then I would vote for redress if the contract were changed to 4S. In the given situation, with the temporizing, all options retained, 3S bid, no one alternative is suggested by the hesitation, so the law cannot logically be applied as written. To apply the law to the 3S call would lead to a claim of damage no matter which option was chosen. If 4S were bid and made, while 3NT went down, [assume, for example, 5-3 clubs, and the heart queen onside], the defenders would claim damage. When, as here, 3NT was accidentally the right contract, because clubs were 4-4, we get a claim of damage. Result at table should stand. Craig Hemphill A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. 1. When Such Information Is Given When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed). 2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 00:09:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:09:45 +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 AAA16390 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:09:38 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-205.uunet.be [194.7.80.205]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA01669 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:08:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3725AAE0.830E7214@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:17:36 +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: Dummy rules OK? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990426231830.0070644c@pop.mindspring.com> > "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > It seems pretty straightforward. Dummy may not look at the opponents' > > hands (L43A2c), and is subject to a PP for doing so. > > There are two common (IME) situations where a PP should not apply. > 1. Dummy enquires with a polite "May I?" and the defender shows his hand. > 2. Defenders "turn away" from declarer such that a dummy looking at the > table (necessary for card pulling duties) cannot help but see the hands so > exposed. > > These behaviours are deeply ingrained in all the various bridge games I > play in, they make the game more human and, providing dummy makes no > attempt to interfere during play, cause no harm. I do not believe that > either of the situations above should be considered breaches of L43A2c. > (Obviously there is sufficient latitude in the wording of the laws to rule > either way in these cases so perhaps SO guidance is the key). > > Tim West-Meads Tim is right in saying that these are not bad breaches of procedure, and PP's should not apply, but he is wrong in suggesting these are the same. L43A2c is quite clear "on his own initiative". Thus 1. from above is an infraction, and 2. isn't. In 1. there should be a ruling according to L43B, in 2. there shouldn't. But I never hand out a PP for this "infraction". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 00:11:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:11:20 +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 AAA16756 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:10:54 +1000 Received: from p3cs07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.61] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10c8ZK-0000x1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:10:39 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:11:42 +0100 Message-ID: <01be908d$f736ba20$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: Bertel Lund Hansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 8:08 AM Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles Mon, 26 Apr 1999 skrev Irwin J Kostal: >honor and a willingness to play at least 2H, maybe more. The east >player had been able to sit out a match, and had ostensibly used the >time to read the card, but had apparently missed the Rosencranz note. In that case it is doubtful whether an agreement on the double exists at all. However there is MI whatever view one takes. >The NS explanation of the 1NT rebid was in accord with their agreements. >South admitted quite freely that his double was based on his assumption >that North had a strong NT. No problem there. >North felt that he was walled by the MI about the double, since a pass >would show spade tolerance and a 2C rebid would be a cue bid of some sort. He was walled by (the lack in) his own system - in a situation created by MI. >The NS pair felt that West was influenced by the MI when he failed to double 2S, I (with limited experience) would say that a double might well be an attempt to wake up partner (wouldn't it show spades?). I feel that there is no damage *caused* by the MI, but I do not know enough to be certain. >We were informed by the Director that only the last bid by the NOs could >be withdrawn, and since the last bid was Pass by north, south was not >permitted to withdraw his double. >I can understand the ruling of the TD, but this information is simply wrong. No it's not. >L 21B1: Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, change a call ... MI ... _Provided that his partner has not subsequently called_ [Read it all Bertel] >L 21B3: When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score ... >Bertel -- >http://image.dk/~blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 00:11:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:11:25 +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 AAA16814 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:11:03 +1000 Received: from p3cs07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.61] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10c8ZP-0000x1-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:10:43 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 15:12:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01be90b7$fda7cc80$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: KRAllison@aol.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 7:49 AM Subject: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question >I'm forwarding this question at the request of the Compuserve Bridge Forum. > >I'll be interested to see what you all think :-) > >Karen > >============================================================= > >n a recent club game, I overcalled a heart. My lho got the contract and my >partner was on lead. She lead a heart to the dummies K x. The declarer >played low and I put in the J from Ace, Q, J. I returned the Ace to the King. >When the declarer got to the dummy,his partner separated the cards and showed >a k 10. The declared said, Oh, play the 10. He then returned the king for a >discard from his hand and made an unmakeable contract. I felt cheated, but >the director said I was responsible for the number of cards in the dummy and >should have known there was a card missing and it could be a heart. What do >you have to say about the ruling? >Thank you. rosemary Which Law did the TD quote when he said Rosemary was responsible for the number of cards in the dummy? :-) An interesting problem. I can understand defender feeling somewhat agrieved. Lets see if there is anything in the Law that will help. Law 41 D. "...dummy spreads" This dummy spread some and stacked others. An error of procedure?Definition "irregularity" ..a deviation from correct procedure. Law9A2b "Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during the play period". Law 45F" ....dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for the purpose of arrangement)...etc.," This dummy touched the cards for the purpose of _re_arrangement, and to do so during the play of a trick could, and in this case did constitute the suggestion of a line of play. The TD may under this Law award an adjusted score if he considers that the defenders were damaged. Law72B1 Dummy knows that there is likely to be a heart lead through his KTx., yes he could have known that to attempt to mislead the defense could be beneficial to his side. I must admit that while I give Rosemary her just and equitable score, I do not go down the 72B1 road! Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 00:48:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:48:21 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA18776 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:48:13 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA23848 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA11360 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:48:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904271448.KAA11360@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > Law 41 D. "...dummy spreads" This dummy spread some and stacked others. An > error of procedure?Definition "irregularity" ..a deviation from correct > procedure. When we have discussed similar cases in the past, most of us have considered that L41D obliges dummy to display the cards so all are visible. While there are no automatic penalties for failure to do so, and for example there are no trick penalties for a revoke, if defenders are damaged by dummy's failure, they are entitled to an adjusted score under L12A1. > I must admit that while I give Rosemary her just and equitable score, I do > not go down the 72B1 road! The other laws Anne cites (9A2b, 45F, 72B1) might apply in this case, but I don't think we need them. My impression is that few TD's are properly trained in the application of L41D. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 01:49:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 01:49:23 +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 BAA18928 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 01:49:14 +1000 Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA05755 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:44:54 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199904271544.KAA05755@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:44:54 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I try to avoid "me, too" posts, but I will violate proper proceedure just this once. :) > It would feel about right if the TD adjusts the score "to both sides > to > restore equity" as L43B3 requires, which could mean no change to the > table result if the revoke did not directly cause damage. In any case > L43B1 says that dummy is liable to penalty under Law 90 (the PP Law). I agree completely. No 'normal' revoke penalty. I doubt if I would issue a PP under L90, but I would have the power to. If the revoke directly benefitted defenders, we give an adjusted score on the grounds of equity. > John Probst writes: > > > And further and this is the complexity, IMO, once play ceases dummy > is > > no longer dummy, (it is no longer "PLAY") so dummy having > > "intentionally" looked at a defender's hand and said "You've > revoked" > > during play loses his rights to penalise, but can still do so after > the > > hand is complete, and retains his Law 9 right. > > >* Otherwise* Law 9 cannot be obeyed, and that one is general, and not > > restricted just to play. > > To consider that L43B3 does not apply to the "ex-dummy" is splitting > hairs to the atom-splitting extreme. L9 permits the ex-dummy to call > attention to an irregularity, as does L42B3, and then L43B3 applies. > Law 9 is obeyed, and so is L43B3. To say otherwise is to say that > dummy can exchange hands with declarer, walk around the table during > the play, examine both defenders' hands, and then merely by waiting > until the last card is played (when he is no longer dummy) can call > attention to an irregularity that he has observed and have a penalty > imposed. Uh-uh. > > L42B3: He [dummy is the antecedent] may call attention to an > irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded. > > This should make it obvious that L42/L43 apply to an "ex-dummy." > Otherwise L42B3 makes no sense, since there is no dummy after play is > concluded. Besides, the definition of "dummy" in the Definitions > section is "declarer's partner." This is clearly the meaning of the > word as used in L42/L43. I agree completely with both of those arguments. To claim that L43b3 does not apply after the play period ends would permit too much leniency for a dummy who has violated his limitations. Further, L42b3 clearly is intended to apply after the play period ceases, and is clearly meant to apply to 'dummy' [or ex-dummy], and it would be absurd IMHO to claim that it applies but L43b3 doesn't, or to claim that L42b3 is a law that never applies! > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 03:29:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 03:29:31 +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 DAA19261 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 03:29:22 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA28766 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:28:48 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 27 Apr 99 18:28 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, 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: <3725AAE0.830E7214@village.uunet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > > Tim is right in saying that these are not bad breaches of > procedure, and PP's should not apply, but he is wrong in > suggesting these are the same. > L43A2c is quite clear "on his own initiative". One could, if one wished, say that Dummy was not "looking on his own initiative" but "requesting a look on his own initiative and being shown on the initiative of RHO/LHO". Of such semantic hair-splitting are legal judgements made. I believe an SO which wished to use this interpretation could do so by regulation without being in conflict with the laws (particularly if we believe the spirit of this Law was to stop "unwanted peering"). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 04:18:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:18:18 +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 EAA19430 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:18:12 +1000 Received: from ip183.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.183]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990427181804.VJL5030.fep1@ip183.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:18:04 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:18:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3728fc1f.6556778@post12.tele.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:31:49 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this >player's hand and sees the revoke. I assume that "deliberately" here is meant to imply "on his own initiative", so that we can consider it a given fact that dummy has violated L43A2c. >Once the hand has ended, dummy >points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal >revoke penalty be applied? No. L43B3. L42B3, which gives dummy the right to call attention to an irregularity after play, is explicitly "subject to the limitations provided in Law 43". I agree with Marvin that L42B/L43 together would make no sense if L43B3 did not also apply when dummy draws attention to the irregularity after play is over. =20 There is then an additional question: when awarding the adjusted score (L12C2), which side or sides should be considered "offending"? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 04:23:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:23:43 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19452 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:23:35 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA03969 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:23:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA11496 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:23:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904271823.OAA11496@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > One could, if one wished, say that Dummy was not "looking on his own > initiative" but "requesting a look on his own initiative and being shown > on the initiative of RHO/LHO". Of such semantic hair-splitting are legal > judgements made. I believe an SO which wished to use this interpretation > could do so by regulation without being in conflict with the laws Perhaps so. As we have discussed in other contexts, SO's can do pretty much whatever they wish, no matter what the Laws say. This particular example strikes me as a bigger stretch than some others. > (particularly if we believe the spirit of this Law was to stop "unwanted > peering"). Some of us believe the spirit of this law is to forbid dummy to look. This avoids any possible accusation that dummy is somehow helping declarer after seeing an opponent's hand. If players prefer a more "social" or "informal" game, that's fine, but they should understand the consequences. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 04:40:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:40:01 +1000 Received: from cs.bu.edu (CS.BU.EDU [128.197.10.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19523 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:39:55 +1000 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@csb [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu ((8.8.8.buoit.v1.0)/8.8.8/(BU-S-10/16/98-v1.0a)) with ESMTP id OAA22303; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:39:18 -0400 (EDT) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id OAA26570; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904271839.OAA26570@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:39:15 -0400 (EDT) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws mailing list) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Apr 27, 99 02:31:49 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >> >> A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this >>player's hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy >>points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal >>revoke penalty be applied? >> The relevant laws: L42.B.3: He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded. L43: Except as specified in L42: L43.A.2.C: Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in either defender's hand. L43.B.3: If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed. If the defenders benefit directly from their irregularity, the director shall award an adjusted score to both sides to restore equity. L64.C: When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. First issue: is dummy looking at defender's hand upon implicit invitation of the defender (I frequently flash my hand at a friend playing dummy), or did he look "on his own initiative"? If he is looking by invitation, then he has not violated L43.A.2.C, and the normal revoke penalty would apply. If he *is* in violation of L43.A.2.C, then L43.B.3 must apply. As I read the above, L42.B.3 allows the (ex)-dummy to draw attention to the irregularity, but, due to his 43.A.2.C violation, L43.B.3 states that "no penalty shall be imposed." So no "automatic" one or two trick penalty is to be assigned. However, the second sentence in L43.B.3, as well as L64.C, allows adjustments to restore equity, even when the revoke penalty has been voided. So the director would need to examie the hand and determine what the result would have been had there been no revoke, and if necessary assign a score accordingly. --David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 04:44:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:44:32 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19548 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:44:23 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA04701 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:44:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA11519 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:44:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904271844.OAA11519@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opinions, Please X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > What did the hesitation suggest? I'm hard pressed to say. One thing it suggests is poor spades. With good spades, either a 3S or 4S bid would most likely have been made in tempo. I suppose you could argue that responder might have been trying to choose between 3S and 4S, but that seems to me pretty unlikely. > 4S would misrepresent > the spade suit, showing six spades (possibly forced with five if a side suit > was wide open, which is not the case). Accordingly, I don't think 4S is a > LA. North has a singleton ace of clubs and five spades to the KQJ. It isn't easy, but it is possible to construct South hands where 4S is the winning action. (Try a doubleton diamond or hands with S-Tx and ten tricks available outside clubs.) This was in the ACBL. I'm not sure how many players would choose 4S, but I think most would seriously consider it, so that makes 4S a LA. The TD's ruling seems clearly on the right track, except that it might perhaps be 4S-2 or even more. Even though South guessed hearts correctly at the table, _North_ will be playing the spade contract. It seems he specifically needs to finesse against H-Q. There may be other complications in the play, and we would need to see all four hands to be sure. Anyway, in adjusting the score, NS should not be given the benefit of South's correct heart guess if an incorrect guess is "at all probable." I am not at all sure what an AC should do. As others have mentioned, there are many questions about the NS bidding. It is quite possible that 4S (and other bids above 3NT, especially 4C) are not LA's or that 3NT is not suggested, but it would take a careful examination of the NS agreements to rule that way. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 06:19:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 06:19:49 +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 GAA19855 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 06:19:42 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h116.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id AAA10810; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:19:33 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3726A958.3A68@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:23:21 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: LAW 73D-F: HESITATION References: <199904151823.OAA02313@cfa183.harvard.edu> <37171067.7CC5B96E@village.uunet.be> <000301be9047$d1c24480$8c6199d0@john> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I got a possibility to get on my hobby-horse. John A. Mac Gregor wrote: "Principles is something we all must play under and one of the most important is fair play." Really, I was pleased very much to read these words from CTD of CACBF. Because of full absence in the Laws of Bridge of such notion - "fair play":) On the contrary - "fair play" is the main conception of the Legend of Bridge. Nevertheless anybody may sense influence of this conception upon the Laws - especially upon the Proprieties. But nobody can find the word "fair" at the Laws. Possible reason was noted by Jeremy Rickard who added: "True but uncontroversial. If we ca agree on what "is" fair play, then I am sure we'll all agree we should do it:)" Every joke has a piece of joke:) It is a pity but foundators of game of Bridge did know what is it - fair play. Maybe - because they were brought up in another way then we are?:) But they tryed to pass us this conception - by means of the Legend. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 07:11:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 07:11:48 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-19-29.imaginemedia.com [206.57.19.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA20099 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 07:11:41 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA02504 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:10:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:10:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199904272110.OAA02504@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: A Committee in Los Angeles Irv Kostal wrote: |Yesterday I served on a committee in what seemed a very complicated |case, and I wonder what BLML listers would think of it. I'll simply |present the situation at first, so that I can hear what you all think. |I'll present the committee's decision later, so you can blast us (if |it's warranted). I have some more information on the case as I got a call from a friend of one of the participants Monday morning. Irv left out a few important, but not crucial, facts. | North North to deal, NS Vulnerable | J | Ax | KJxxx | Kxxxx |West East |KQTxx A |KJ9 Qxxxx |Txxx Ax |x Jxxxx | South | 98xxxx | Txx | Qx | AQ | |the bidding: |North East South West |1D 1H 1S X * |1N ** 2C 2S P |P 3C P 3H |P P X all pass | |* Alerted as Snapdragon, showing clubs with a heart tolerance |** Alerted as showing a strong (14+ to 17) NT | |The MI by the East player, was brought to light at the end of the |auction, and the director was called at that time. Play proceeded, and |the result was +530 for EW. The director's ruling was Avg. + for NS, |Avg.- for EW, i.e., +3 imps and -3 imps, respectively. EW appealed the |director's ruling. | |The EW convention card says they play Rosencranz doubles, i.e., a heart |honor and a willingness to play at least 2H, maybe more. The east |player had been able to sit out a match, and had ostensibly used the |time to read the card, but had apparently missed the Rosencranz note. ... |The players were all quite competent, and one of them has considerable |International experience. Stuff Irv doesn't mention: That's North, which matters. During the committee hearing, West said that he passed 2S "because he knew there had been a misunderstanding and he wanted to get his partner to pass." I think a redouble at North's second turn would have promised three spades. Any other action denies three. I'm not certain of this; North plays support doubles in all other partnerships of which I know (one of North's regular partners told me this) but normally does not play 12-14 NTs, so it's possible that in this one case that support doubles were off. ---------------------------- My take on the matter: West is sufficiently experienced to know better, although he obviously didn't. I'd give him a significant PP to get him to start learning about his ethical requirements. I don't think, however, that his actions led to N/S's bad result, so they don't get redress. If he had doubled 2S (obvious without UI, isn't it?), N/S gets to 3Dx, which goes for about 500, roughly the same as the actual result. I'd give West 1/2 board (double what's normally given around LA) PP as his offense was blatant and intentional. That'll teach him to be so candid :) North's 1NT bid was a clear blunder and led directly to N/S's bad result. If North had passed the double, there'd be a good chance of N/S's going plus on the hand; as East, I'd bid 4C. What would happen thereafter is not clear. West can't pass (use of UI), and I don't think East would pass 4H with such poor hearts. That'd provide at least 300 to N/S. How bad a blunder is 1NT? Is it enough to sever the connection between the UI and N/S's bad result? I think that depends on the local rules. It's not a "wild swinging action," I think, but a poorly judged choice. The reason North claimed to have bid 1NT is fear that 1Sx was going to be passed out. North though that South would read the 1NT bid as a retreat, not a strong NT. I belive North is not extremely familiar with 12-14 NTs; that's the basis of the error, I think. It's clear that if there had been no MI, North would have bid 2C and N/S land on their feet. If North knows about the misunderstanding, that is, knows that West thinks that the double was heart support and East thinks that it is clubs, then North would surely pass, achieving a possible big result. It is not clear to me how much of this North is permitted to know in the context of MI redress. I believe North is not entitled to know that there has been a misunderstanding, but only what the actual systemic agreement was, but I don't know this for certain; the laws can be interpreted either way, I think. How to rule? There was misinformation. It led, at least indirectly, to N/S's bad result. If there had been no misinformation, North might have done something silly, but *it would have had to be something else silly* so it's clear to me that E/W cannot keep +530. Was North's error bad enough to break the chain of causality between the MI and -530? It's hard to say---that's a judgment call. North is, indeed, an internationalist, but isn't extremely familiar with the system N/S were playing. It is clear that North would not have been in the position in question if there had been no MI. I think I'd, therefore, give North a break and rule that misinformation led to the bad result and that the 1NT call was caused somewhat by the MI, rather than plain foolishness. I lean towards that view partly because I believe that North had a clue from body language that West might not have meant the double as clubs. I know I could have read West that far, and North knows West fairly well as a frequent opponent. Given North's (and West's!) hand, the obvious interpretation that West might have intended was that the double was penalties. It seems reasonable to take steps against that possibility, even though clear thinking would demonstrate otherwise: if, indeed, the final contract was to be 1Sx, N/S would probably get redress if there was, in fact, misinformation. I wonder if East picked up the same vibes from West? 2C is a massive underbid. There's no reason why partner can't have xxx Kx xxx AK10xx. If so, 5C is a reasonable contract and 2C would cause E/W to play in a partscore. The 1NT bid suggests stoppers, but certainly could be made with CQx, particularly when redouble shows spades. I don't have enough reason to believe that East acted on UI rather than on the belief that North had a club stopper (in which case, game is almost certainly not happening) to consider taking action there. Indeed, East bid clubs twice, albeit at lower levels than I think is correct, so I conclude that East is clean, just conservative. What adjusted score should we assign if we believe that the MI led to the -530? We are instructed to find the most favorable likely result for N/S and the least favorable result at all probable for E/W. The auction could go in a zillion ways; I can imagine N/S's going for 800, E/W's getting too high (after x-pass-4C-pass-4H-pass-5C-double or the like or even worse x-pass-4C-pass-4S cue bid). Indeed, I think the last situation is at least "at all probable;" I suspect it'd happen to me had I been there. Somehow, however, that just doesn't seem fair. Moreover, I don't know how likely these scenarios are---going for some number is definitely "at all probable," but no single case is likely to reach that standard. Par on the board is N/S -140. Given that -140 is a reasonably likely result if no problems at all had occurred, I think I'd end up giving everyone that score, even though I think A+/A- is technically more accurate, because I don't think a committee can, with confidence, determine the likely results given E/W's misunderstanding. I think -140/+140 is more favorable to E/W than a technical ruling would be, but North isn't exactly blame-free, so that choice appeals to my sense of equity. I don't believe that I know a player who'd understand or appreciate a ruling in which I chose +300/-300 in favor of N/S, and, while that might well be the right technical ruling, the decisions to be made are close enough that I'd go out of my way to avoid it; I think I can legally. Given that I've already dinged E/W six IMPs and they are the ones appealing, I'd be afraid of being lynched by giving E/W -300! As a director at the table, I'd rule A+/A-; it's clear that the misinformation at least somewhat led to the NOS's bad result, and it would take a lot of analysis to determine what the results would be without it and to judge North's culpability. I'd send them to an AC if that were an option in that event (it was). Outside of the ACBL, where directors are expected to rule fully if they can, I'm not sure what I'd rule. Here, where it's normal to make a first-order ruling and send the whole shebang to committee, I'd do that. If I judged that North's 1NT bid was so awful as to break the connection between the infraction and 530, I'd let N/S keep -530, but give E/W +140. I'm not so happy about the 140 score in this case; E/W should probably get a worse score than par as they were on their way to a possible disaster. Upon reflection, I'd probably give them either Ave- or +140, whichever is worse for their side. I'm not sure that's legal, but it appeals to my sense of equity. I agree with Irv's claim that this is a complicated ruling. It's mostly complicated wrto bridge judgment. It brings up some interesting questions. 1) What is the ACBL's exact criterion for an action that causes the NOS's bad result no longer to be consequent of a previous infraction? 2) How much is a misinformed player allowed to know about an auction in which there has been a misunderstanding? He is at least given the real systemic meaning of the auction; the laws simply state that this is his right. In practice, however, it's impossible to create just that situation unless the explanation was correct. In cases in which a misexplanation occurred, when giving redress by imagining alternative actions for damaged players, are we allowed to give them the information that they had at the table in addition to the information to which they are entitled? If so, depending on the situation, they might be given knowledge of the misunderstanding. Perhaps a more succinct way to ask the question is, "when ruling in a misinformation case, do we place the player in his actual position with the addition of all knowledge to which he is entitled, or do we put him in the place of someone who knows what he should have known if there had been no infraction?" Presumably, in either case, we allow the partner of the player in question to know the same thing, and to allow each to know that the other knows he knows. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 08:21:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:21:13 +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 IAA20311 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:21:05 +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 10cGDm-0009DQ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:20:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:46:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <01be90b7$fda7cc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01be90b7$fda7cc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: KRAllison@aol.com >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 7:49 AM >Subject: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question > > >>I'm forwarding this question at the request of the Compuserve Bridge Forum. >> >>I'll be interested to see what you all think :-) >> >>Karen >> >>============================================================= >> >>n a recent club game, I overcalled a heart. My lho got the contract and my >>partner was on lead. She lead a heart to the dummies K x. The declarer >>played low and I put in the J from Ace, Q, J. I returned the Ace to the >King. >>When the declarer got to the dummy,his partner separated the cards and >showed >>a k 10. The declared said, Oh, play the 10. He then returned the king for >a >>discard from his hand and made an unmakeable contract. I felt cheated, but >>the director said I was responsible for the number of cards in the dummy >and >>should have known there was a card missing and it could be a heart. What >do >>you have to say about the ruling? >>Thank you. rosemary > >Which Law did the TD quote when he said Rosemary was responsible for the >number of cards in the dummy? :-) > >An interesting problem. I can understand defender feeling somewhat agrieved. >Lets see if there is anything in the Law that will help. >Law 41 D. "...dummy spreads" This dummy spread some and stacked others. An >error of procedure?Definition "irregularity" ..a deviation from correct >procedure. There is certainly an error in procedure and without doubt legally we can fine dummy. >Law9A2b "Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during the play >period". I suppose if you want to be harsh you could argue that dummy should not now spread the cards, so we could fine dummy - again! >Law 45F" ....dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for the >purpose of arrangement)...etc.," This dummy touched the cards for the >purpose of _re_arrangement, and to do so during the play of a trick could, >and in this case did constitute the suggestion of a line of play. No way! Re-arrangement is arrangement! If you re-score an event then you are scoring it for the second [or more] time, but you *are* scoring it. A re-shuffle of government ministers is a shuffle of them [actually, our beloved media uses the term re-shuffle the *first* time it happens, but to expect the poor dears to count up to two is unreasonable]. Furthermore, if a player arranges the dummy, he is not making a suggestion to partner per se: it might so be construed. In this case, it clearly isn't. C'mon, Anne, dummy found a card, that's all! >The TD may under this Law award an adjusted score if he considers that the >defenders were damaged. Didn't happen! >Law72B1 Dummy knows that there is likely to be a heart lead through his >KTx., yes he could have known that to attempt to mislead the defense could >be beneficial to his side. >I must admit that while I give Rosemary her just and equitable score, I do >not go down the 72B1 road! Nor do I. To do so, dummy must realise at the time of the infraction, ie when originally mis-spreading the dummy, that it was likely to disadvantage the defence. I am reading this thread with interest to see if anyone can give me a Law that allows me to adjust the score. I cannot think of one offhand. I have no intention of letting declarer and dummy profit from this: the PP I give them is going to be large enough that they do not profit, but is there anything we can do for the NOs? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I would like to also comment on my father's geography, he would not know where to start looking for table one yet alone to be able to find it. In fact if he were drawn there for the 1st match he would go home satisfied at getting to table one. Richard Probst (His longer suffering son) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 08:21:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:21:12 +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 IAA20312 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:21:06 +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 10cGDm-0009DP-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:20:55 +0000 Message-ID: <0Af8BUBGeeJ3EwK2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:36:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opinions, Please References: <34c1c905.24571e7e@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <34c1c905.24571e7e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Hemphill wrote: >1) TD ruling is incorrect, but easily understood in the rush to make a >decision on the spot during play. No, no, no! It is no wonder that people are losing faith in the people that interpret the Laws if this disgraceful approach is accepted. I lead out of turn - the TD arrives and says "Oh, I couldn't be bothered: lead a spade, and if it turns out wrong , then appeal." Is this the way you want the game to go? Do you think that deciding all bridge in the appeals room is desirable? The only satisfactory way is for TDs to give correct rulings as far as possible. If they are in a rush, tough: they will just have to delay their coffee to later. It is not acceptable to give a totally illegal ruling because the TD cannot be bothered to get it right. No wonder the game is losing its appeal in North America if this is accepted. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 08:43:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:43:44 +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 IAA20364 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:43:37 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10cGZg-0001N4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:43:32 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990428004027.00ac1100@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:40:27 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:21 27-04-99 +0100, you wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >> There has been an interesting thread on RGB, and David desJardins, >>whose comments on the Laws are always interesting, has expressed a view. >>Perhaps people here would like to express their opinion since he has >>worried me slightly! >> >> For those who read RGB I have changed the story somewhat to make the >>relevant point. >> >> A defender revokes. Dummy has been deliberately looking at this >>player's hand and sees the revoke. Once the hand has ended, dummy >>points the revoke out: no-one else has noticed. Should the normal >>revoke penalty be applied? >> >> >>cc David desJardins >> >Funnily enough Steve Noble, who initiated the original thread, asked me >about it this evening. I opined as follows: > >Law 9A2b1 Dummy may not call attention to any irregularity during the >play but may do so after the play of the hand is concluded. > >Law 42B3 He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play >of the hand is concluded. > >Law 43A2c Dummy may not on his own initiative look at the face of a card >in either defender's hand > >Law 43B3 If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 >preceding is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, >no penalty shall be imposed. > >This is a bit complex but I read this as follows: > >Law 9 gives dummy absolute rights. >Law 43 limits his rights during the play of the hand. The heading of the >section starting with Law 41 is "PLAY" > >So clearly if defender shows dummy his hand (carelessly or >inadvertently) and indeed dummy doesn't even need to try not to look >then 43A2c is not violated, and therefore Law 43B3 is not brought into >play, in which case the revoke penalty must be paid. > >And further and this is the complexity, IMO, once play ceases dummy is >no longer dummy, (it is no longer "PLAY") so dummy having >"intentionally" looked at a defender's hand and said "You've revoked" >during play loses his rights to penalise, but can still do so after the >hand is complete, and retains his Law 9 right. > >*Otherwise* Law 9 cannot be obeyed, and that one is general, and not >restricted just to play. > >I think DdJ hasn't read the Laws well enough this time to get away with >being as dogmatic as he always is. I score this one DWS 1, DdJ 0. > >Mind you it hurts because I rule in DWS's favour about as often as >there's a solar eclipse in Merseyside. > >Cheers John >-- i agree with your point of view (and would rule accordingly), but i think, reading the answers, we are a minority. Perhaps this should be brought up to the NA (or WBF), so we get the right interpretation of the laws. If so many people think otherwise, it would be a good idea to settle this at the highest level. regards, anton >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 Wed Apr 28 09:04:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:04:43 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20421 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:04:35 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA15267 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:04:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA11752 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:04:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:04:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904272304.TAA11752@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >Law 41 D. "...dummy spreads" This dummy spread some and stacked others. An > >error of procedure?Definition "irregularity" ..a deviation from correct > >procedure. Weren't you the person who suggested this in the first place, perhaps a year or two ago? > I am reading this thread with interest to see if anyone can give me a > Law that allows me to adjust the score. I cannot think of one offhand. Dummy has put the cards down with one hidden. Isn't that contrary to L41D? You seem to have said so yourself just above. Now when the violation causes damage, what is wrong with L12A1? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 09:27:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:27:28 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20478 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:27:19 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA15569 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA11806 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:27:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:27:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904272327.TAA11806@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jeff Goldsmith > If [West] had doubled 2S (obvious without UI, isn't it?), I missed this on first reading. Yes, West has made a Rosencranz double on the first round, showing his heart support. Now that the opponents offer to play in his best suit, a penalty double is indeed obvious, absent the UI. This is another case where L73C seems to have been violated, but a violation of L16A is at best unclear. Quite likely the normal double was _suggested_ by the UI, or at least I think one could make a case that way. Anyway, I agree with the PP and no damage. > It is not clear to me how much of this North is permitted to > know in the context of MI redress. I believe North is not > entitled to know that there has been a misunderstanding, but > only what the actual systemic agreement was, but I don't know > this for certain; the laws can be interpreted either way, I think. I agree with all the above. > ...going for some number is definitely > "at all probable," but no single case is likely to reach > that standard. If the cumulative total is "at all probable," then you have to assign one of the numbers. We have discussed this before. Rank the cases in order of unfavorability to the OS, assign your favorite probability to each one, and give the OS the one that puts the cumulative probability over 1/6 (in the ACBL). > Upon reflection, I'd probably give them either > Ave- or +140, whichever is worse for their side. I'm not > sure that's legal, but it appeals to my sense of equity. This is the one David and I disagree on. I think it's legal; he doesn't. In spite of our disagreement on a subtle legal point, both of us detest this kind of score and recommend strongly against it. Assign a result: +140, or minus a number, or a split score, but assign some result. > 1) What is the ACBL's exact criterion for an action that > causes the NOS's bad result no longer to be consequent > of a previous infraction? Wasn't this just changed to the world standard of "wild, gambling, or reckless?" Or am I remembering something else? > 2) "when ruling in a misinformation > case, do we place the player in his actual position > with the addition of all knowledge to which he is > entitled, or do we put him in the place of someone > who knows what he should have known if there had been > no infraction?" L12C2 says "if the irregularity had not occurred," but that only applies to the NOS. This is far from a full answer, but it's a start. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 09:39:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:39:20 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA20511 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:39:11 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA15702 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA11821 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:39:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:39:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904272339.TAA11821@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > L42B3, which gives dummy the right to call attention to an > irregularity after play, is explicitly "subject to the > limitations provided in Law 43". Also, L9A2b1 is consistent. (Ex-)dummy may call attention after play is over, but the TD looks at L43 when deciding what penalty to apply. > There is then an additional question: when awarding the adjusted > score (L12C2), which side or sides should be considered > "offending"? Ohhh, good question! I think the (ex-)defending side (which revoked or committed some other infraction) has to be considered offending. I hope we all agree on that! But what about the other side? I tentatively suggest they should be considered non-offending for this purpose. The TD is _restoring equity_ for the infraction during the play, and presumably dummy's violation of L43A didn't cause the infraction. If it did, or might well have, I'd consider both sides offending. In fact, if dummy's conduct was (in some bizarre case) the direct cause of defender's infraction, I'd adjust the score as if the infraction had not occurred, considering only dummy's side as offending. In practice, this will seldom matter, I expect, but it's a good point. Dummy can still be given a PP, of course, if that's the policy of the TD or SO for the circumstances. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 09:49:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:49:51 +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 JAA20545 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:48:53 +1000 Received: from p41s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.66] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10cHag-00033w-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:48:38 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:50:37 +0100 Message-ID: <01be9108$bfb18280$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 11:55 PM Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question >Anne Jones wrote: >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: KRAllison@aol.com >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 7:49 AM >>Subject: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question >> >> >>>I'm forwarding this question at the request of the Compuserve Bridge Forum. >>> >>>I'll be interested to see what you all think :-) >>> >>>Karen >>> >>>============================================================= >>> >>>n a recent club game, I overcalled a heart. My lho got the contract and my >>>partner was on lead. She lead a heart to the dummies K x. The declarer >>>played low and I put in the J from Ace, Q, J. I returned the Ace to the >>King. >>>When the declarer got to the dummy,his partner separated the cards and >>showed >>>a k 10. The declared said, Oh, play the 10. He then returned the king for >>a >>>discard from his hand and made an unmakeable contract. I felt cheated, but >>>the director said I was responsible for the number of cards in the dummy >>and >>>should have known there was a card missing and it could be a heart. What >>do >>>you have to say about the ruling? >>>Thank you. rosemary >> >>Which Law did the TD quote when he said Rosemary was responsible for the >>number of cards in the dummy? :-) >> >>An interesting problem. I can understand defender feeling somewhat agrieved. >>Lets see if there is anything in the Law that will help. >>Law 41 D. "...dummy spreads" This dummy spread some and stacked others. An >>error of procedure?Definition "irregularity" ..a deviation from correct >>procedure. > > There is certainly an error in procedure and without doubt legally we >can fine dummy. > >>Law9A2b "Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during the play >>period". > > I suppose if you want to be harsh you could argue that dummy should >not now spread the cards, so we could fine dummy - again! > >>Law 45F" ....dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for the >>purpose of arrangement)...etc.," This dummy touched the cards for the >>purpose of _re_arrangement, and to do so during the play of a trick could, >>and in this case did constitute the suggestion of a line of play. > > No way! Re-arrangement is arrangement! If you re-score an event then >you are scoring it for the second [or more] time, but you *are* scoring >it. A re-shuffle of government ministers is a shuffle of them >[actually, our beloved media uses the term re-shuffle the *first* time >it happens, but to expect the poor dears to count up to two is >unreasonable]. > > Furthermore, if a player arranges the dummy, he is not making a >suggestion to partner per se: it might so be construed. In this case, >it clearly isn't. C'mon, Anne, dummy found a card, that's all! > >>The TD may under this Law award an adjusted score if he considers that the >>defenders were damaged. > > Didn't happen! Yes it did. Law 45F " the Director shall rule whether dummy's act did in fact constitute a suggestion to declarer. Declarer, because of an infraction by his side, was under the impression that he had no choice of card to play. In drawing attention to the fact that he was mistaken I believe that dummy has _suggested_ that he consider a choice. The HA was played and declarer followed, his LHO followed and declarer was just about to instruct dummy to play the HK. Dummy re arranged the cards, as a result of this act declarer said "Oh" play the 10. For the reason given above I believe that the TD has the right to assign an adjusted score as the defenders were damaged. > > I am reading this thread with interest to see if anyone can give me a >Law that allows me to adjust the score. I cannot think of one offhand. >I have no intention of letting declarer and dummy profit from this: the >PP I give them is going to be large enough that they do not profit, but >is there anything we can do for the NOs? > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, UK >I would like to also comment on my father's geography, he would not know >where to start looking for table one yet alone to be able to find it. In >fact if he were drawn there for the 1st match he would go home satisfied >at getting to table one. Richard Probst (His longer suffering son) Are you John Probsts shorter suffering son then :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 10:02:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:02:31 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-19-29.imaginemedia.com [206.57.19.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA20579 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:02:26 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA01195 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199904280000.RAA01195@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Steve Willner wrote: |> From: Jeff Goldsmith | |> If [West] had doubled 2S (obvious without UI, isn't it?), | |I missed this on first reading. Yes, West has made a Rosencranz double |on the first round, showing his heart support. Now that the opponents |offer to play in his best suit, a penalty double is indeed obvious, |absent the UI. | |This is another case where L73C seems to have been violated, but a |violation of L16A is at best unclear. Quite likely the normal double |was _suggested_ by the UI, or at least I think one could make a case |that way. Anyway, I agree with the PP and no damage. I noticed it, but had extra information from the hearing; West expressly stated that he took advantage of UI. That makes it a slam dunk; we don't need to know LAs, etc. to discern a violation of law. It's obvious that it didn't damage the NOS; they were going for a number in 3Dx if he had doubled 2S. I love it when someone cheats and damages himself :) On the other hand, at first reading, I thought the actual agreement (or West's understanding thereof) was that the double was penalty. It certainly appeared so from his hand and North's choice of 1NT! |> ...going for some number is definitely |> "at all probable," but no single case is likely to reach |> that standard. | |If the cumulative total is "at all probable," then you have to assign |one of the numbers. We have discussed this before. Rank the cases in |order of unfavorability to the OS, assign your favorite probability to |each one, and give the OS the one that puts the cumulative probability |over 1/6 (in the ACBL). When there are a dozen or more possibilities, how can one manage to come up with probabilities that won't be off by a factor of two or more? I can imagine results of +500, +300, +150, +100, +110, +90, +50, -140, -200, -500, -530, and -800 for N/S on the board. I don't think anyone could evaluate the likelihood of each result with any degree of certainty. (Luckily, we can ignore 3H-1, 3H+4, etc. as we know how the defense went and MI isn't an issue at that point.) |In spite of our disagreement on a subtle legal point, both of us detest |this kind of score and recommend strongly against it. Assign a result: |+140, or minus a number, or a split score, but assign some result. The rationale is that there's no probable result to choose. Or perhaps too many? If not, one has to assign an artificial score. L12C2 is not complete; it doesn't discuss what to do if there is no "likely result." My reading is that unless all of L12C2's conditions are met, then one cannot assign an adjusted score. If so, one must assign an artificial score "due to the irregularity." |> 1) What is the ACBL's exact criterion for an action that |> causes the NOS's bad result no longer to be consequent |> of a previous infraction? | |Wasn't this just changed to the world standard of "wild, gambling, |or reckless?" Or am I remembering something else? Thank you. 1NT is clearly not "wild, gambling, or reckless." Stupid, foolish, silly, goofy, forgetful, or asystemic, maybe, but not wild, gambling, or reckless. Seems to me that the world standard should include unintentional blunders somehow, but that's another problem. |> 2) "when ruling in a misinformation |> case, do we place the player in his actual position |> with the addition of all knowledge to which he is |> entitled, or do we put him in the place of someone |> who knows what he should have known if there had been |> no infraction?" | |L12C2 says "if the irregularity had not occurred," but that only |applies to the NOS. This is far from a full answer, but it's a |start. Right. Define "if the irregularity had not occurred." Does it mean that we imagine a hypothetical situation in which the NOS knows not what they actually know, but what they really are allowed to know only? What about the offending side? If they are off the tracks, shouldn't they continue to be? In this case it means that North would bid 2C, losing all chance to take advantage of the opponents' misunderstanding. If so, +140/-140 is by far the most likely result; remember that if no irregularity existed, no misunderstanding exists either. This is certainly simple enough and avoids all sorts of information problems. I think. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 10:16:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:16:47 +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 KAA20607 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:16:42 +1000 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id KAA29694; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:16:03 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma029594; Wed, 28 Apr 99 10:15:53 +1000 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 KAA10627 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:15:53 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14135; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:18:38 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990428095405.0097bb40@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:14:06 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Change of Call Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Playing in a state selection event the following occurred. N E S W 1C* P P 1C=15+ At which point South realised that they had passed accidentally their partners strong club. The director was called and they asked what the situation was: The director ruled that correction under L25A was not appropriate (as a side issue I am still not clear about this - one of the kibitzers said that a Pass could never be corrected under L25A which seemed particularly strange. That strange decision in Vancouver reinforced my opinion. It seems to me the game would be much easier if we just stood by what we bid/played (allowing only corrections for mechanical errors eg. caused by stuck bidding cards)). We moved on to L25B. LHO had still not called and tried substituting 1D. This created the (IMHO) ridiculous situation that my partner (I was sitting E) had the chance to let the auction proceed without penalty. I do not understand the rationale for a player being placed in this invidious position. Can you imagine an LOL not condoning the changed bid of Bobby Wolff/Goldman/Hamman etc.? Why should someone be forced to be nice/nasty?] Anyway, the 1D bid was not accepted. Now, director explained to S that they could change their bid from P to anything they liked but the maximum they could get on the board would be -3 imps if they so chose. They decided to Pass. North was now told they must pass on the next round of the bidding. Let me recap the auction: N E S W 1C P P = cancelled 1D = cancelled P X 2C North in the excitement caused by the proceedings forgot they must Pass and bid 2C. The director cancelled the 2C call (I couldn't even accept it - why not? the laws don't seem very consistent in this area) and now NS were forced to Pass for the remainder of the auction.... The final auction: N E S W 1C P P = cancelled 1D = cancelled P X 2C = cancelled P 1D P 1H// [Note for those interested X=good hand, 1D=-ve - anyone discussed their defence to a precision auction starting 1C P P ?? where the 1C opener has to pass at the next opportunity?!] The director now ruled that declarer could demand or prohibit the lead of any suit because the cancelled 1D bid was artificial. It seemed very interesting at the time. Were all the rulings correct? [I certainly had no complaint with the way the matter was handled - the director was very good in coping with a quite unusual situation.] Rgds, Peter Newman [It matters not the slightest on the actual hand - 1H making +170 on friendly splits was the datum in a butler scored event] NSWBA webmaster http://nswba.com.au -- Peter Newman Fujitsu Australia Limited +61-2-9452-9111 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 10:24:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:24:33 +1000 Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA20634 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:24:28 +1000 Received: from hdavis (209-122-214-231.s485.tnt3.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.214.231]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id UAA17437; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:24:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <011d01be910d$6cda49c0$e7d67ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <199904271844.OAA11519@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Opinions, Please Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:24:04 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Opinions, Please > > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > What did the hesitation suggest? I'm hard pressed to say. > > One thing it suggests is poor spades. With good spades, either a 3S or > 4S bid would most likely have been made in tempo. I suppose you could > argue that responder might have been trying to choose between 3S and > 4S, but that seems to me pretty unlikely. > Poor spades? In a game forcing auction, S could have been starting a 3-card limit raise with 1NT and be looking at Axx Ax Kxxx xxxx The jump shift in diamonds puts him in slam territory. Now he has to think. Are they playing fast arrival? Will a 4-4 diamond suit play better than the 5-3 spade fit, particularly if there is a need to pitch a heart loser? Does N have real diamonds, or did he manufacture a value showing jump-shift on a 3-card suit? Should S bid out his shape scientifically (and risk mapping out the defense) or just blast away into slam? Is there enough to think about with this hand to cause a flight B player to hesitate during the auction? Does this hand suggest either 4S or 3N over the other? [snip] >Anyway, in adjusting the score, NS should not be given the > benefit of South's correct heart guess if an incorrect guess is "at > all probable." > Why on earth not? He got it right at the table. Actually, I'm wondering that nobody has mentioned the misdefence that allowed N/S to make 5 NT. In adjusting to 4S, do we now allow them to defend heroically to set a contract that would usually make, when they actually misdefended at the table? To phrase my question more generally, do what degree to we let what happened at the table influence the adjusted score? In adjusting, do we throw out good play by N/S and a misdefence by E/W if we rule that the contract is altered? Or do we take these into consideration in determining the most likely results had the infraction not occurred? I must admit I am curious to see the E/W hands. > I am not at all sure what an AC should do. As others have mentioned, > there are many questions about the NS bidding. It is quite possible > that 4S (and other bids above 3NT, especially 4C) are not LA's or that > 3NT is not suggested, but it would take a careful examination of the NS > agreements to rule that way. > Agreed. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 10:55:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:55:59 +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 KAA20699 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:55:53 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehod.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.13]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA04658 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:55:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990427205345.00705ef8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:53:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <199904271844.OAA11519@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:44 PM 4/27/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> What did the hesitation suggest? I'm hard pressed to say. > >One thing it suggests is poor spades. With good spades, either a 3S or >4S bid would most likely have been made in tempo. I suppose you could >argue that responder might have been trying to choose between 3S and >4S, but that seems to me pretty unlikely. > No, the hesitation doesn't necessarily suggest poor spades _beyond the information about trump quality suggested by the auction itself_. Perhaps S can hold the limit raise with 3 trumps, but if so he surely won't pass 3nt. It is not clear whether the hesitation makes that possibility more or less likely, but it is pretty clear that the likelihood of that hand pattern with or without the hesitation is largely irrelevant. To put it another way, with good spades and limit values, S will correct to 4S over 3nt, while with good spades and 6-9, S would have raised initially. Thus S perforce holds less-than-good spades in the only cases that matter. This may seem like a minor quibble, but does bear on the question of "suggested by", IMO. Clearly the hesitation suggests doubt about the proper strain, but no more so than the bid itself, which is the point made by Craig in his analysis. One other point: You say that with good spades, either a 3S or a 4S would have been made in tempo. As I've pointed out, S probably can't hold "good" spades. But taking your statement at face value, it seems unreasonable to assert that this choice could have been made in tempo. Might S have been debating about which of these was better? If so, then the hesitation arguably suggests 4S over 3nt. >North has a singleton ace of clubs and five spades to the KQJ. It >isn't easy, but it is possible to construct South hands where 4S is the >winning action. (Try a doubleton diamond or hands with S-Tx and ten >tricks available outside clubs.) This was in the ACBL. I'm not sure >how many players would choose 4S, but I think most would seriously >consider it, so that makes 4S a LA. > >The TD's ruling seems clearly on the right track, except that it might >perhaps be 4S-2 or even more. Even though South guessed hearts >correctly at the table, _North_ will be playing the spade contract. It >seems he specifically needs to finesse against H-Q. There may be other >complications in the play, and we would need to see all four hands to >be sure. Anyway, in adjusting the score, NS should not be given the >benefit of South's correct heart guess if an incorrect guess is "at >all probable." > >I am not at all sure what an AC should do. As others have mentioned, >there are many questions about the NS bidding. It is quite possible >that 4S (and other bids above 3NT, especially 4C) are not LA's or that >3NT is not suggested, but it would take a careful examination of the NS >agreements to rule that way. > I think that 4S is a LA in any case, unless NS can document a clear systemic reason why it could not be so. The vulnerability of the TD's ruling, it seems to me, is much more in the direction of "demonstrably suggested by". We certainly don't want to put N in a position in which any action he takes is subject to reversal, and I have some concern that the ex post facto analysis of the results puts us in precisely that spot. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 11:05:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:05:53 +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 LAA20723 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:05:45 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehod.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.13]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA02977 for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:05:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990427210338.00706d88@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:03:38 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:19 PM 4/27/99 +1000, Simon wrote: >Half-right, I believe Mike. Have you considered law 43B3? >"If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is the first >to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed" > >So the normal revoke penalty does not apply. However, as the second part >of 43B3 says, the director needs to establish equity by awarding an adjusted >score if the defenders have benefitted directly through the revoke. > >Regards, >Simon Edler, >Database Administrator, >Information Technology Branch, >Forestry Tasmania >Email: Simon.Edler@forestry.tas.gov.au > Ah, a jurisdictional difference. In the ACBL version of the Laws, L43B3 is (apparently) non-applicable. Or at least that is my understanding of the grayed-out heading in the Laws posted at www.acbl.org. I don't know where the original case was from, but that apparently could make a difference. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 11:38:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:38:21 +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 LAA20786 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:37:57 +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 UAA18070 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 20:37:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0T1JO02P Tue, 27 Apr 99 20:40:25 Message-ID: <9904272040.0T1JO02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 99 20:40:25 Subject: A COMMITT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some claim that North's 1N snapped the connection between the MI and damage. With the correct explanation the 1N is never mentioned but 2C is, and so would not have influenced south to double 3H. It is quite likely that the correct explanation would have had NS bowing out of the auction. The Ui issue looks to be that W has three indicated calls after 2S- double, pass, and 3H. Defending 2S is the proper bridge action. It is likely that E will bid 3C after both a double or pass. 3H looks to be the adjusted contract. Ruling, the double is cancelled and adjust the score for the tricks taken at 3H. Why did the case not include what N said they would have done with a correct explanation of double? Surely, the director asked the questions. Roger Pewick B>Subject: A Committee in Los Angeles B>Irv Kostal wrote: B>|Yesterday I served on a committee in what seemed a very complicated B>|case, and I wonder what BLML listers would think of it. I'll simply B>|present the situation at first, so that I can hear what you all think. B>|I'll present the committee's decision later, so you can blast us (if B>|it's warranted). B>I have some more information on the case as I B>got a call from a friend of one of the participants B>Monday morning. Irv left out a few important, but B>not crucial, facts. B>| North North to deal, NS Vulnerable B>| J B>| Ax B>| KJxxx B>| Kxxxx B>|West East B>|KQTxx A B>|KJ9 Qxxxx B>|Txxx Ax B>|x Jxxxx B>| South B>| 98xxxx B>| Txx B>| Qx B>| Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 12:01:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:01:37 +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 MAA20845 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:01:31 +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 10cJfB-000PKL-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 02:01:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 02:31:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? In-Reply-To: <007a01be907c$213f65e0$b8fc7ad1@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <007a01be907c$213f65e0$b8fc7ad1@hdavis>, Hirsch Davis writes snip > >Law 9 gives Dummy the right to call attention to the infraction, which is >not in dispute. Law 9 says nothing about the penalty imposed after Dummy >does so. There is no conflict between Law 9 and Law 43.B.3. One refer's to >Dummy's right to call attention to an infraction, while the other regulates >the penalty imposed when Dummy does so. I hadn't read it this way, but I'm now inclined to agree. The point being that Law 9 is absolute, and your reading still allows for this. > These are not the same thing, and >mitigating the penalty imposed after an infraction in no way violates >Dummy's right to call attention to the infraction at the proper time. > >> I think DdJ hasn't read the Laws well enough this time to get away with >> being as dogmatic as he always is. I score this one DWS 1, DdJ 0. >> > >IMO David desJardins has read the Laws very well indeed. Now agreed, but he'd missed the Law 9 aspect of it IMO 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 Apr 28 12:01:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:01:43 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA20852 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:01:37 +1000 Received: from [158.152.214.47] (helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cJfB-00013e-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 02:01:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 02:51:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question 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 >>>n a recent club game, I overcalled a heart. My lho got the contract and my >>>partner was on lead. She lead a heart to the dummies K x. The declarer >>>played low and I put in the J from Ace, Q, J. I returned the Ace to the >>King. >>>When the declarer got to the dummy,his partner separated the cards and >>showed >>>a k 10. The declared said, Oh, play the 10. He then returned the king snip >>I must admit that while I give Rosemary her just and equitable score, I do >>not go down the 72B1 road! > > Nor do I. To do so, dummy must realise at the time of the infraction, >ie when originally mis-spreading the dummy, that it was likely to >disadvantage the defence. Surely dummy *could have known* that hiding the 10 *would be likely* to damage etc. We're not arguing that dummy intended to do this but if - in the cold light of day - you asked dummy whether hiding the 10 might damage the defence, then dummy would have had to say Yes. Just as you could ask a second in hand player whether opening a 1-count multi out of turn might damage the opponents. I'm going 72B1, and 12A1 if I can find nothing else. Certainly the offenders aren't going to profit. -- 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 Apr 28 13:33:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA21020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:33:35 +1000 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA21015 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:32:46 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (4537) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qGTFa24553; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <84dc0267.2457db2b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:31:55 EDT Subject: Re: Opinions, Please To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 246 Reply-To: RCraigH@aol.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/27/99 6:23:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: << >1) TD ruling is incorrect, but easily understood in the rush to make a >decision on the spot during play. No, no, no! It is no wonder that people are losing faith in the people that interpret the Laws if this disgraceful approach is accepted. I lead out of turn - the TD arrives and says "Oh, I couldn't be bothered: lead a spade, and if it turns out wrong , then appeal." Is this the way you want the game to go? Do you think that deciding all bridge in the appeals room is desirable? The only satisfactory way is for TDs to give correct rulings as far as possible. If they are in a rush, tough: they will just have to delay their coffee to later. It is not acceptable to give a totally illegal ruling because the TD cannot be bothered to get it right. No wonder the game is losing its appeal in North America if this is accepted. >> From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 14:22:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA21123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:22:16 +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 OAA21118 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:22:10 +1000 Received: from default (pm30-2-24.ac.net [205.138.47.83]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA04328 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:22:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904280422.AAA04328@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:24:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:23 PM 4/25/99 -0400, you wrote: >Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: > >Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) oxymoron :-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Nobody vul, N dealer > > > KQJxx > KTx > ATxx > A > > Ax > J9x > Kxxx > xxxx > >(EW Passing) >N S >1S 1nt* >3D** ...3S >3NT P > >*forcing >**game force > >By taking the right view in the heart suit and with clubs 4-4, declarer >makes 3nt. Indeed, he makes 5 when an opponent wrongly pitches a diamond on >the run of spades, but in any case 3nt is unbeatable the way S played it. > >The director was called at the time of the hesitaition (all agreed it was >lengthy), and E summoned him back after the hand. He adjusted to 4S down 1, >based on the idea that the hesitation suggests doubt about spades which N >might otherwise choose to bid, and that a tapping defense will establish >the club winner before N can estabish 10 tricks. > >Because the result ended up immaterial to the final standings, NS chose not >to appeal. But the questions are 1) is the TD's ruling correct and 2) if >so, how should an AC have decided if it had come to that? What a filthy 3D bid! I wouldn't bid 3D and I usually play non-forcing jumps over forcing 1NT (and use 2NT for all gf hands) He sure would have punished a partner holding x Qxxx Kxxx xxxx who could have been a hero by getting them to 2m on a lot of hands.... Seems pretty obvious what his plan was - to bid 3NT over 3S and maybe 4H over 3H. Pard has just about always denied 3 card spade support (if he has it in a LR, he would usually jump to 4S so pard knows he has three). Who knows what the slow 3S was - maybe pard was thinking of 3H, bidding 3NT, or maybe he was gagging with the example hand I showed above. I don't see a LA to 3NT by North. Linda > >Thanks, > >Mike Dennis > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 15:05:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:05:55 +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 PAA00210 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:05:47 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21312; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:43:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ba01be9131$b7385560$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <3.0.1.32.19990427210338.00706d88@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:41:46 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Dennis wrote: Simon Edler wrote: > >Half-right, I believe Mike. Have you considered law 43B3? > >"If dummy after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is the > first > >to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed" > > > >So the normal revoke penalty does not apply. However, as the second part > >of 43B3 says, the director needs to establish equity by awarding an adjusted > >score if the defenders have benefitted directly through the revoke. > > > > > > Ah, a jurisdictional difference. In the ACBL version of the Laws, L43B3 is > (apparently) non-applicable. Or at least that is my understanding of the > grayed-out heading in the Laws posted at www.acbl.org. I don't know where > the original case was from, but that apparently could make a difference. > L43B3 *is* applicable in the ACBL version of the Laws. There is no mention of it in the Exceptions at the rear of the Laws, nor does L43B3 include the right of an SO to exclude or vary it. Maybe Chyah can explain the graying for us. I'm betting it's just an HTML typo. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 15:11:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:11:32 +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 PAA00234 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:11:26 +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 <19990428043302.DRFY6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:33:02 -0700 Message-ID: <37269096.6413ACAE@home.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:37:42 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles References: <01be9042$b75e3b80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > Pass is a bid which may be suggested by the UI. How? Don't forget these days you have to "demonstrate" this. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 15:11:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:11:35 +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 PAA00239 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:11:29 +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 <19990428045019.DWWA6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:50:19 -0700 Message-ID: <372694A4.52753104@home.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:55:00 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org, blml Subject: Re: ETHICAL CHOIC References: <9904270045.011XU03@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Your latest posting stayed nicely within the existing thread, but please note it only was sent to me privately. Make sure that when you "reply to" you also "address" the posting to BLML. Typically, the software's default will reply "to sender" which is not really what we want to do here. This requires a second step, and I also sometimes forget! Although I suspect your response was intended for the group, I feel I cannot quote it here just on the off chance that you really intended it as private. Please resend it to "blml" if that was indeed your intention. Let me just comment on one of your points. r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > does damage by the ignorant affect the score less than damage by the > knowledgeable? No - but "Logical Alternatives" are often different. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 15:14:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA00268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:14:35 +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 PAA00263 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:14:26 +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 <19990428051419.EELW6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:14:19 -0700 Message-ID: <37269A44.1D83E6E5@home.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:19:00 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <01be90b7$fda7cc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I am reading this thread with interest to see if anyone can give me > a Law that allows me to adjust the score. I cannot think of one > offhand. It might be a slight stretch, but what about allowing defender to change her card acc L45D? I'm assuming the T was stuck under the x, not the K. Anyway, in the worst case I see no problem in adjusting as per L12A1. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 16:00:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:00:15 +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 QAA00371 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:00:09 +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 <19990428060001.EQPA6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:00:01 -0700 Message-ID: <3726A4FA.7E9F8ADB@home.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:04:42 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904272110.OAA02504@corp.affiliation.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with a lot of what Jeff says, just have a few comments: Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > North > though that South would read the 1NT bid as a retreat, not a > strong NT. I belive North is not extremely familiar with > 12-14 NTs; that's the basis of the error, I think. That's pretty weak, for an international. Especially if XX would be support, it should be obvious that 1NT shows a strong NT now. > It's clear that if there had been no MI, North would have bid > 2C and N/S land on their feet. Yes - as long as South doesn't repeat his 6 cd spade suit! > I lean towards that view partly because I believe that North > had a clue from body language that West might not have meant > the double as clubs. I know I could have read West that far, > and North knows West fairly well as a frequent opponent. > Given North's (and West's!) hand, the obvious interpretation > that West might have intended was that the double was penalties. > It seems reasonable to take steps against that possibility, Sorry, I don't agree here. We are now entering "double-shot" territory. Indeed if N suspected there was ME, even more reason to bid normally, taking the auction at face-value, knowing that if they get a bad result because of ME they'll get redress. > What adjusted score should we assign if we believe that the > MI led to the -530? We are instructed to find the most > favorable likely result for N/S and the least favorable > result at all probable for E/W. The auction could go in > a zillion ways; I don't think so, but that is based on my conviction that NS have no right to the best of a "normal" result and some potential catastrophy befalling EW. Absent the ME it seems we all agree that N would bid 2C. S would now either give simple preference to 2D, leading to EW playing a H-partial for EW +140, or rebid 2S on his 6 carder, possibly leading to EW + "a lot more". So EW +140. > > If I judged that North's 1NT bid was so awful as to break > the connection between the infraction and 530, I'd let > N/S keep -530, but give E/W +140. I'm not so happy about > the 140 score in this case; E/W should probably get a worse > score than par as they were on their way to a possible > disaster. Upon reflection, I'd probably give them either > Ave- or +140, whichever is worse for their side. I'm not > sure that's legal, but it appeals to my sense of equity. So why not push ACBL to adopt L12C3, allowing you to do "equity" without breaking the law?? -:)) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 16:09:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:09:27 +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 QAA00394 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:09:16 +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 <19990428060911.ESVD6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:09:11 -0700 Message-ID: <3726A71F.7160D3B1@home.com> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:13:51 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904280000.RAA01195@corp.affiliation.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > |> 2) "when ruling in a misinformation > |> case, do we place the player in his actual position > |> with the addition of all knowledge to which he is > |> entitled, or do we put him in the place of someone > |> who knows what he should have known if there had been > |> no infraction?" > | > |L12C2 says "if the irregularity had not occurred," but that only > |applies to the NOS. This is far from a full answer, but it's a > |start. > > Right. Define "if the irregularity had not occurred." > Does it mean that we imagine a hypothetical situation > in which the NOS knows not what they actually know, but > what they really are allowed to know only? What about > the offending side? If they are off the tracks, shouldn't > they continue to be? I think you make this more complicated than it is. The "irregularity" was the ME. If this had not occurred, apparently E would have given the *correct* explanation instead. If he gives the correct explanation he cannot be assumed to have a misunderstanding. The laws aim to correct damages, not dish out penalties or give "freebies" to NOS. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 19:11:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:11:13 +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 TAA00667 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:11:06 +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 KAA25606 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:11:00 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA18953 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:10:57 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 9:10:56 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA19460 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:10:54 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:10:54 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199904280910.KAA19460@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > From: David Stevenson > > >Law 41 D. "...dummy spreads" This dummy spread some and stacked others. An > > >error of procedure?Definition "irregularity" ..a deviation from correct > > >procedure. > > Weren't you the person who suggested this in the first place, perhaps > a year or two ago? > > > I am reading this thread with interest to see if anyone can give me a > > Law that allows me to adjust the score. I cannot think of one offhand. > > Dummy has put the cards down with one hidden. Isn't that contrary to > L41D? You seem to have said so yourself just above. Now when the > violation causes damage, what is wrong with L12A1? > When I put dummy down wrong (a had my third spade under my trumps, defence only cashed two spades and the third spade came to light when partner drew trumps), the TD did me with L84E and gave the defence their third spade trick. "If an irregularity has occurred for which no penalty is provided by law, the Director awards an adjusted score if there is even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged, notifying the offending side of its right to appeal (see Law 81C9)." Which seems similar in effect to L12A1. 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 Apr 28 22:13:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:13:57 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01058 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:13:47 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cTDh-000Cgn-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:13:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 03:01:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904280000.RAA01195@corp.affiliation.COM> In-Reply-To: <199904280000.RAA01195@corp.affiliation.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >When there are a dozen or more possibilities, how >can one manage to come up with probabilities that >won't be off by a factor of two or more? I can imagine >results of +500, +300, +150, +100, +110, +90, +50, -140, >-200, -500, -530, and -800 for N/S on the board. I don't >think anyone could evaluate the likelihood of each result >with any degree of certainty. (Luckily, we can ignore >3H-1, 3H+4, etc. as we know how the defense went and >MI isn't an issue at that point.) Why do we need a degree of certainty? You want to adjust to a totally random result that has nothing to do with the board in question: why is a guessed-at result any worse? >|In spite of our disagreement on a subtle legal point, both of us detest >|this kind of score and recommend strongly against it. Assign a result: >|+140, or minus a number, or a split score, but assign some result. > >The rationale is that there's no probable result to >choose. Or perhaps too many? If not, one has to assign >an artificial score. Why? The Law does not say that. > L12C2 is not complete; it doesn't >discuss what to do if there is no "likely result." My >reading is that unless all of L12C2's conditions are met, >then one cannot assign an adjusted score. If so, one must >assign an artificial score "due to the irregularity." Must? Why not just give both sides -2300: there is just as much justification. It does not say in L12C2 "switch to L12C1 if this is too tricky" so I do not how you can say must. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 22:14:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:14:00 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01063 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:13:51 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cTDk-000ChD-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:13:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 02:53:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <199904272304.TAA11752@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904272304.TAA11752@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> >Law 41 D. "...dummy spreads" This dummy spread some and stacked others. An >> >error of procedure?Definition "irregularity" ..a deviation from correct >> >procedure. > >Weren't you the person who suggested this in the first place, perhaps >a year or two ago? > >> I am reading this thread with interest to see if anyone can give me a >> Law that allows me to adjust the score. I cannot think of one offhand. > >Dummy has put the cards down with one hidden. Isn't that contrary to >L41D? You seem to have said so yourself just above. Now when the >violation causes damage, what is wrong with L12A1? I h-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-t-e using L12A1. Most times it is used it seems to be a cop-out to save TDs trouble in finding the right Law. However, that does not mean it is not right here. Perhaps it is. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 22:14:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:14:01 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01064 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:13:52 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cTDk-000ChC-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:13:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 02:50:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? References: <3.0.1.32.19990427210338.00706d88@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990427210338.00706d88@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Ah, a jurisdictional difference. In the ACBL version of the Laws, L43B3 is >(apparently) non-applicable. Or at least that is my understanding of the >grayed-out heading in the Laws posted at www.acbl.org. I don't know where >the original case was from, but that apparently could make a difference. L43B3 is applicable in all jurisdictions. It is not a Zonal option. The reason the heading is "greyed out" [as it is also in the English edition] is that exceptionally this section has no heading in the Laws, so the Editor has invented one. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 22:14:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:14:00 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01065 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:13:52 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cTDk-000ChE-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:13:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 02:56:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904272327.TAA11806@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904272327.TAA11806@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jeff Goldsmith >> 1) What is the ACBL's exact criterion for an action that >> causes the NOS's bad result no longer to be consequent >> of a previous infraction? >Wasn't this just changed to the world standard of "wild, gambling, >or reckless?" Or am I remembering something else? Well, the World changed it to "irrational, wild or gambling". But is North America part of the World? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 23:23:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:23:00 +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 XAA01268 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:22:51 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA14486 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:22:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 28 Apr 99 14:21 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? 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: <199904271823.OAA11496@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner wrote: > > Perhaps so. As we have discussed in other contexts, SO's can do pretty > much whatever they wish, no matter what the Laws say. This particular > example strikes me as a bigger stretch than some others. But less of a stretch than the ACBL and law 40:-) > > If players prefer a more "social" or "informal" game, that's fine, > but they should understand the consequences. If players prefer a more "social" game and SOs are not providing it then they too should understand the consequences. I don't profess to know what players actually want and I don't know how much market research is carried out but I do know that it is sometimes better to adapt a "product" to the desires of the market than to attempt to mould those desires. Whether we market "Bridge - the ultimate in competitive intellectual challenge" or "Bridge - a fun and stimulating day out for all the family" we need to ensure that the laws support the message. Obviously the bridge market is not exactly homogeneous so you may want 2 regulations. Club/sectional/most regional: Asking to look at oppos cards when dummy will *not* be considered a breach of L43 Flagship/National events: Asking to look at oppos cards when dummy *will* be considered a breach of L43. Granted such complexity may be more damaging than the problem it is meant to solve. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 28 23:22:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:22:59 +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 XAA01269 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 23:22:52 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA14504 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:22:15 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 28 Apr 99 14:21 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles 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: <199904280000.RAA01195@corp.affiliation.COM> Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > When there are a dozen or more possibilities, how > can one manage to come up with probabilities that > won't be off by a factor of two or more? I can imagine > results of +500, +300, +150, +100, +110, +90, +50, -140, > -200, -500, -530, and -800 for N/S on the board. I don't > think anyone could evaluate the likelihood of each result > with any degree of certainty. (Luckily, we can ignore > 3H-1, 3H+4, etc. as we know how the defense went and > MI isn't an issue at that point.) > Absent the MI (and thus with a 2 club bid by North) the defence might start CA,CQ. While I think 3H can always be made on this lead it is not as easy a contract as on any other lead and reasonable losing options may well exist (the H87 could have a role). Surely this possibility cannot be so easily discounted. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 00:28:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:28:33 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03679 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:28:24 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA26917 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA12190 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:28:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904281428.KAA12190@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opinions, Please X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Poor spades? In a game forcing auction, S could have been starting a 3-card > limit raise with 1NT ... The jump shift in diamonds puts him in slam > territory. Now he has to think. Yes, I alluded to this possibility. I still think it is quite unlikely both that South will have that hand and that he will think long with it if he does. Evidently your bridge judgment is different. Fine with me. > >Anyway, in adjusting the score, NS should not be given the > > benefit of South's correct heart guess if an incorrect guess is "at > > all probable." > > > > Why on earth not? He got it right at the table. _South_ got it right at the table, but _North_ will be playing 4S. Also, North only has one way to play hearts, as I remember the hands. Perhaps my analysis is faulty. > To phrase my question more generally, do what degree to we let what happened > at the table influence the adjusted score? In adjusting, do we throw out > good play by N/S and a misdefence by E/W if we rule that the contract is > altered? Or do we take these into consideration in determining the most > likely results had the infraction not occurred? We take them into account _to the extent they apply_. For example, if one side revokes, there's (normally) no reason to believe they wouldn't have revoked in a different contract, so we take that into account. (But I think we cancel the revoke if the revoking player would have become dummy. Anybody agree or disagree?) On the other hand, if, as above, South has a two-way guess in hearts in 3NT and gets it right, that doesn't affect how North will play 4S, where he has only a one-way guess in hearts. Even if North had a two-way guess, why should he get it right just because South did? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 00:39:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:39:58 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03734 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:39:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA27377 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:39:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA12206 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:39:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:39:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904281439.KAA12206@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Surely dummy *could have known* that hiding the 10 *would be likely* to > damage etc. >... whether opening a 1-count multi out of turn might damage the opponents. While I sympathize with your intentions, there's a vast difference between "would be likely to damage" and "might damage." The former is the phrase used in L72B1. Hiding the H-T _might_ damage either side, but I fail to see why it's more likely to damage the other side than one's own. Perhaps you have a case when considering the T is first hidden and later revealed at a critical point in the play, but I still think it's far-fetched. What's wrong with L41D? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 00:50:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:50:52 +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 AAA03775 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:49:57 +1000 Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:48:59 +0200 Message-ID: <37271FEB.BD4AC9FF@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:49:15 +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: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <199904272304.TAA11752@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! To heat up this discussion again here is a quotation from the LAWS ("Interpretation of the Laws"). >>>> A simple declaration that a player “does” something (“….dummy spreads his hand in front of him…”) establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. <<<< David Stevenson schrieb: > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: David Stevenson > >> >Law 41 D. "...dummy spreads" This dummy spread some and stacked others. An > >> >error of procedure?Definition "irregularity" ..a deviation from correct > >> >procedure. So this point seems wrong to me. You cannot penalize one just because a breach of L 41D... (and this example shows that the rules didnt want to use 12A1 here. So I think, David you are right not using it.... But: I think you can use 71B2. This has to be happen in a very careful manner. In the case described, it seems fairly obvious, that there should be a correction. The dummy culd have known that it might to his advantage to hide the h10 and show it in the right moment. But: I think you shall not correct the score, if the situation would be in a way that dummy could not have known that this might be advantageous to hide a card (eg a trump or a card in pards long suit).Another example for not correcting the score would be if he had found the card before the lead of hA or after dropping the K under the ace. There would be no damage than anyway. > > > >Weren't you the person who suggested this in the first place, perhaps > >a year or two ago? > > > >> I am reading this thread with interest to see if anyone can give me a > >> Law that allows me to adjust the score. I cannot think of one offhand. > > > >Dummy has put the cards down with one hidden. Isn't that contrary to > >L41D? You seem to have said so yourself just above. Now when the > >violation causes damage, what is wrong with L12A1? > > I h-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-t-e using L12A1. Most times it is used it > seems to be a cop-out to save TDs trouble in finding the right Law. > > However, that does not mean it is not right here. Perhaps it is. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 00:55:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:55:44 +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 AAA03799 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:55:33 +1000 Received: from uni-duesseldorf.de (actually FB03W204.UNI-MUENSTER.DE) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:31 +0200 Message-ID: <37272139.D5BA9598@uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:54:49 +0200 From: Richard Bley X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de]C-QXW0310J (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <199904281439.KAA12206@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner schrieb: > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > Surely dummy *could have known* that hiding the 10 *would be likely* to > > damage etc. > > >... whether opening a 1-count multi out of turn might damage the opponents. > > While I sympathize with your intentions, there's a vast difference > between "would be likely to damage" and "might damage." The former > is the phrase used in L72B1. correct > > Hiding the H-T _might_ damage either side, but I fail to see why > it's more likely to damage the other side than one's own. Perhaps > you have a case when considering the T is first hidden and later > revealed at a critical point in the play, but I still think it's > far-fetched. The actual case was from this sort I think. Dummies LHO bid 1h and the h10 was missing at the dummy. The card was shown after LHO tried to catch dummies K with the ace... > > What's wrong with L41D? See my other post. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 01:07:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:07:03 +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 BAA03947 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:06:55 +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 10cVv7-000Pys-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:06:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:57:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <01be90b7$fda7cc80$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <37269A44.1D83E6E5@home.com> In-Reply-To: <37269A44.1D83E6E5@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I am reading this thread with interest to see if anyone can give me >> a Law that allows me to adjust the score. I cannot think of one >> offhand. > >It might be a slight stretch, but what about allowing defender to change >her card acc L45D? I'm assuming the T was stuck under the x, not the K. [1] It is more than a slight stretch! [2] My understanding was that after the first trick was to dummy's x and the defender's Q, the defender led the ace and *then* the ten was discovered, so it must have been behind the king. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I would like to also comment on my father's geography, he would not know where to start looking for table one yet alone to be able to find it. In fact if he were drawn there for the 1st match he would go home satisfied at getting to table one. Richard Probst (His longer suffering son) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 01:07:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:07:01 +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 BAA03944 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:06:52 +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 10cVv7-0000ii-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:06:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:57:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question 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: >Surely dummy *could have known* that hiding the 10 *would be likely* to >damage etc. We're not arguing that dummy intended to do this but if - >in the cold light of day - you asked dummy whether hiding the 10 might >damage the defence, then dummy would have had to say Yes. > >Just as you could ask a second in hand player whether opening a 1-count >multi out of turn might damage the opponents. I think the difference between these two examples shows why I think L72B1 is not the way to go. If you put dummy down with a card missing from view, what is the most likely thing to happen [apart from someone noticing]? It is that declarer will go wrong as a result. That is at least as likely as the defence going wrong: declarer's tend to do more planning of combined assets, and so on. On balance I would expect such an error to benefit the defence. I thus consider the test in L72B1: "... that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side..." fails: it is likely to *benefit* the NOS, not damage them. If a player has a 1-count, the likelihood of it being his opponent's hand is very high. If he messes up the auction in some way, eg by psyching out of turn, then it is highly likely to work in his favour: the test works because it is likely to *damage* the NOS, not benefit them. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, UK I would like to also comment on my father's geography, he would not know where to start looking for table one yet alone to be able to find it. In fact if he were drawn there for the 1st match he would go home satisfied at getting to table one. Richard Probst (His longer suffering son) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 01:47:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:47:30 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-19-29.imaginemedia.com [206.57.19.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA04136 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:47:24 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA03435 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:45:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:45:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199904281545.IAA03435@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles David Stevenson wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: |>Steve Willner wrote: | |>When there are a dozen or more possibilities, how |>can one manage to come up with probabilities that |>won't be off by a factor of two or more? I can imagine |>results of +500, +300, +150, +100, +110, +90, +50, -140, |>-200, -500, -530, and -800 for N/S on the board. I don't |>think anyone could evaluate the likelihood of each result |>with any degree of certainty. (Luckily, we can ignore |>3H-1, 3H+4, etc. as we know how the defense went and |>MI isn't an issue at that point.) | | Why do we need a degree of certainty? You want to adjust to a totally |random result that has nothing to do with the board in question: why is |a guessed-at result any worse? A guessed-at result has a much higher variance and is much more likely to produce a silly result. Of course, one can just tinker with the numbers in cases like this to produce whatever result desired. |>|In spite of our disagreement on a subtle legal point, both of us detest |>|this kind of score and recommend strongly against it. Assign a result: |>|+140, or minus a number, or a split score, but assign some result. |> |>The rationale is that there's no probable result to |>choose. Or perhaps too many? If not, one has to assign |>an artificial score. | | Why? The Law does not say that. I think it does. It may not mean it, but it says it. L12C1 begins, "When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, ..." L12C2 begins, "When a director awards an assigned score ... the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred...." If there is no "result that was likely" then L12C2 states (by direct word substitution) that the score is no score. What do we do if no score can be assigned? We pick an artificial score. Literally, L12C1 says, "no result can be *obtained*," but does that mean "for the board," or "for the assignment," or either? I think the answer is either, so I think that if there's no likely result, an artificial score is to be assigned. | It does not say in L12C2 "switch to L12C1 if this is too tricky" so I |do not how you can say must. C1 says what to do if you have no result. C2 says what result to pick and creates cases in which there is no result. One can read C1 to state that it cannot be invoked from the failing cases in C2, but then C2 apparently requires the Director to assign no score at all. How does he assign no score? Seems to me by invoking C1, which applies when there's no score. This is a very unusual case; there must be many possible results with none likely. It's probably near impossible for the offending side's score to be artificial as a result of this interpretation; there will nearly always be at least one score "at all probable." But it seems possible, albeit rare, for there to be no "likely" scores. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 01:58:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:02:36 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA03909 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:02:26 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA28239 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA12243 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:02:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:02:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904281502.LAA12243@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Bley > >>>> A simple declaration that a player “does” something (“….dummy spreads his hand in front of him…”) establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. <<<< Yes. > You cannot penalize one just because a > breach of L 41D.. I think we all agree with this. Nobody is talking about a penalty. We are talking about redressing damage. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 02:54:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:54:27 +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 CAA04563 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:54:22 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA10557 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001701be9197$bf58a720$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199904280000.RAA01195@corp.affiliation.COM> Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 09:54:10 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > > L12C2 is not complete; it doesn't > >discuss what to do if there is no "likely result." My > >reading is that unless all of L12C2's conditions are met, > >then one cannot assign an adjusted score. If so, one must > >assign an artificial score "due to the irregularity." > A result doesn't have to be "likely" to be assigned under L12C2. Why do people keep saying that? L12C2 calls for the "most favorable result that was likely," which could be an unlikely result (only one chance in three, according to the ACBL LC guideline). Still, there is a problem when multiple possible favorable results have probabilities of less than 1/3 each, say .20, .25, .30. Steve Willner's neat solution is to start from the bottom and accumulate probabilities. When you reach .333 or more, stop and assign that score, which in this example would be the .25 result. That is as close as one can come to satisfying the intent of L12C2 equitably, IMO. No need for an artificial score adjustment. In the absence of L12C3, which ("to do equity") would permit assignment of the .20 and .25 results with weight of 4/9 and 5/9, respectively (using the method I favor, which subordinates L12C3 to L12C2), Steve's solution feels right. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 03:03:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:01:59 +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 BAA03877 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:01:24 +1000 Received: from p6fs02a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.130.112] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand3.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 10cVpf-00045K-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:01:04 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:38:11 +0100 Message-ID: <01be915a$d5096740$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: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 6:37 AM Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles >Anne Jones wrote: > >> Pass is a bid which may be suggested by the UI. > >How? Don't forget these days you have to "demonstrate" this. :-) > The UI is that East thinks West has got a Club suit, with heart support. I wonder if West would be making an unequivocal penalty double of 2S if this is what he held. We do not know too much about their agreements, but I would expect that a double of 2S might be encouraging partner to bid again. This is something West cannot afford given the UI. Thus I believe Pass is a bid which is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 03:12:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:12:39 +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 DAA04654 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:12:33 +1000 Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13821 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003d01be919a$49f47060$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199904272327.TAA11806@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 10:08:49 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: Jeff Goldsmith > > >> 1) What is the ACBL's exact criterion for an action that > >> causes the NOS's bad result no longer to be consequent > >> of a previous infraction? > > >Wasn't this just changed to the world standard of "wild, gambling, > >or reckless?" Or am I remembering something else? > > Well, the World changed it to "irrational, wild or gambling". But is > North America part of the World? > This was decided by the ACBL LC when they met at the Orlando NABC last fall, but what the decision was we don't know. The minutes of that meeting are to be published in the near future, Chip Martel informed me at the spring NABC in Vancouver. I have the impression that the LC's deliberations concerned acceptance or non-acceptance of the Lille WBFLC interpretations of the Laws, not merely the development of guidelines for obediently implementing them. I hope I'm wrong. We're waiting............ Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 03:28:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:28:45 +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 DAA04790 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 03:28:33 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA25310 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:28:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:28:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904281728.NAA18723@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199904281545.IAA03435@corp.affiliation.COM> (message from Jeff Goldsmith on Wed, 28 Apr 1999 08:45:43 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith writes: > Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles > David Stevenson wrote: > |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > |>Steve Willner wrote: > |>When there are a dozen or more possibilities, how > |>can one manage to come up with probabilities that > |>won't be off by a factor of two or more? I can imagine > |>results of +500, +300, +150, +100, +110, +90, +50, -140, > |>-200, -500, -530, and -800 for N/S on the board. I don't > |>think anyone could evaluate the likelihood of each result > |>with any degree of certainty. (Luckily, we can ignore > |>3H-1, 3H+4, etc. as we know how the defense went and > |>MI isn't an issue at that point.) > | Why do we need a degree of certainty? You want to adjust to a totally > |random result that has nothing to do with the board in question: why is > |a guessed-at result any worse? > A guessed-at result has a much higher variance > and is much more likely to produce a silly result. Average-plus is often just as silly a result, particularly at IMPs. Suppose there is a complicated part-score deal, and E-W commit MI eqarly in the auction, which entitles N-S to an adjusted score. Reasonable scores may range from -200 to +200. Now, suppose N-S's teammates at the other table are -500; average-plus will give N-S a score of +3 IMPs, although it was not at all probable that N-S would have scored better than -7 (+200 vs. -500). Even at matchpoints, average-plus may create an unreasonable result if this table is not representative of the other tables. For example, suppose that the MI was a misexplanation of a double (intended as one-suited, explained as penalty) of North's weak NT, and most other pairs play strong NT. N-S might have been headed for +180 in 1NTx making, or -100 in 1NTx down 1, or +200 if E-W get to 3D scrambling after the double, none of which are likely results at any other table; they might also get to a normal +100 or -90 or -110 defending 2D or 2H, or +110 or +140 in 2S, or -50 in 2NT or 3S. Giving N-S an automatic average-plus and E-W average-minus is unfair here if there was a reasonable chance at +180 (probably a 90% board) at this table. What I would suggest doing with a guessed-at result is to use the most favorable single result which approximates the standard of likelihood. In the case above, if it is very unlikely that West would have sat for the penalty double, then +180 is an unlikely score, and should not be assigned as the score even if +180 together with +200 meet the likelihood standard and +200 alone does not. It might be reasonable to say that +200 for N-S was not "likely" but was "at all probable", +180 was not a probable result, and +150 was a likely result, and thus award +140/-200. > I think it does. It may not mean it, but it says it. > L12C1 begins, "When, owing to an irregularity, no result > can be obtained, ..." L12C2 begins, "When a director > awards an assigned score ... the score is, for a non-offending > side, the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred...." If there is no > "result that was likely" then L12C2 states (by direct word > substitution) that the score is no score. It is very unlikely that there is no "result that was likely" on a board; if that happens, I could see awarding A+/A-. But a "result that was likely" need not have a 1/3 chance by itself as long as it is reasonable. -- 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 Apr 29 04:46:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 04:46:40 +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 EAA05192 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 04:46:30 +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 NAA25289 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:46:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0JE19022 Wed, 28 Apr 99 13:48:08 Message-ID: <9904281348.0JE1902@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 99 13:48:08 Subject: Fwd: RE: ETHICAL CHOIC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan asked me to forward this. Roger Pewick Forwarded Message ---------------------------------->8================= Jkamras, Here is a try. I have had messages undeliveerable and have resorted to using my address bok when replying. J>Roger - first a general plea: Doesn't your e-mail software allow you to J>just "respond" or "reply" to a posting, so as to keep your posting J>within the thread? If not, can't you just use *exactly* (i.e. incl. J>upper/lower case) the same "subject" as everyone else? It really messes J>up my mailbox having the same topic discussed in 2 threads, in addition J>to which it makes it more difficult to follow the discussion. Am I the J>only one to have this problem? J>r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: J>> J>> The most likely meanings of West's pause include [a] desire to make a J>> negative double but can't handle if partner bids the 'wrong suit' > J>and/or [2] J>> has the potential values to penalize the overcall and/or [3] has > J>support > which is not biddable. The effect of the huddle is that it > J>practically > assures opener that whether they rebid their suit or make J>a reopening > double, it will be successful. J>How so? Even if accepting only those 3 suggested "meanings" of the J>huddle, both "a" and "2" suggest *short* hearts. Double is the only J>action that caters to all 3. Contrary to what you say their is no J>assurance whatsoever that rebidding hearts will be successful (in fact J>quite to the contrary). When responder has general values as suggested by the huddle, the 2H call is less likely to get hurt. J>> The most reasonable rebids for opener are double, pass, and 2H. The > J>huddle > suggests double and 2H over pass. System requires that the J>call be > double > and therefore there is no systemic LA to double. J>First you say pass and 2H are both "reasonable", then you say the system J>*requires* a double. Apart from the contradiction in your statement, how J>on earth do you know what *E/W's* "system" requires?? One of the many J>mistakes in your analysis is that you seemingly assume EW play a 5cM J>system, when it was stipulated that they play "acol" ie 4cM. In a 5cM J>context with neg. doubles there is certainly *no* alternative to double J>and Anne would surely not have posted this "problem". Only in a 4cM Check out what S.Garton Churchill had to say about the reopening double in his 4 card system. And he did not employ negative doubles. J>context is 2H even remotely conceivable. Furthermore you don't know if J>this EW plays "automatic" reopening doubles when short in opponents' J>suit, or if it requires some "extras". Say double will result in a disasterous 3C contract, then pass would be much better. Or 2H may not get hurt but partner's takeout of the double could land in that disasterous 3C contract. As such, there is a reasonable expectation that the auction will not get out of hand with pass or 2H. But consider the ramifications of 2S or 2N opposite a passed partner- if responder has the wrong cards you may not be able to stay out of slam- for instance. I don't think there is anything so incongruous between what you call contradictory statements. the case said that the system was negative doubles. If neg dble meant anything other than opener was required to double with the subject hand, the case would have included THAT. J>> 2H was selected instead of J>> double so 2H was an infraction. J>You seem to have no clue about how to apply L16. It is not an infraction J>to chose the "wrong" bid. In this case it can be argued that opener did J>everything to follow the law by *not* chosing the double, which was J>clearly (at least to the rest of us) the call suggested by the UI. J>> For a player that does not make the J>> required systemic bid, pass is a LA. J>See above. What one *can* conclude is that either this player followed J>L16 very well, or he is so weak that for his peer-group all of X, Pass, J>2H and 2S are LAs. J>One thing common to many postings on this is the assumption that neither J>Pass nor 2H are LAs. They aren't LA if double was selected. No adjustment is double was selected. But it was not. I agree with this if the peer-group is advanced or J>better. For *this* very weak player's peers there are several LAs, J>particularly if using the ACBL definition (and remembering they play J>4cM). does damage by the ignorant affect the score less than damage by the knowledgeable? J> Here what I have written to Mike Dennis: Hello Mike, Many players agree that when they pass like west did one of the likely holdings is a paucity of honors. When responder has a paucity of values a likely outcome for the east hand is four or five tricks in a heart contract. Even if not doubled, that score is -200 or -300. In order to improve on that score, responder would have to provide values. On the other hand the maximum score for 2D is -110 or -130. In any form of scoring, -130 is better than -200. By opener's own words and deeds they said they were unwilling to penalize diamonds, particularly when their partner said that it was the place to be. For a player that would prefer a likely outcome of -500 or -800 in a heart contract might also prefer -130 in a diamond contract even more. In the interest of human survival, it can be presumed that such an alternative would be a logical alternative. At every point in the auction there are indicated calls and non-indicated calls. Among the indicated calls there often is one or perhaps two calls that are clearly indicated. Clearly indicated calls include textbook solutions, system required calls, and the like. Indicated calls include those that keep the bidding within the indicated capacity of the partnership's holdings. Non-indicated calls include those that are likely to take the partnership to places beyond the indicated capacity of the hands assuming the holdings are minimum. In this case, a reopening double is the required action and would be a clearly indicated call. 2H and pass would be indicated calls, either may work out better than double but double is more likely to be superior because it has the best options with a minimal downside. A rebid like 2N or 2S would be non-indicated calls [hopefully for obvious reasons] even though they might work out splendidly. And there are players that frequently pass in that auction. For instance, there is a player I partner on a regular basis that has only about 1000 masterpoints who bids a lot. We have a typical negative double agreement. With the hand we are talking about she will double, and will bid 2H, and ten times a year will pass. Roger Pewick Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 04:53:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 04:53:07 +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 EAA05217 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 04:53:00 +1000 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 04:53:00 +1000 Received: (qmail 21821 invoked from network); 28 Apr 1999 18:52:53 -0000 Received: from pm02-100.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.100) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 28 Apr 1999 18:52:52 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990428145218.406f573c@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: A Committee in Los Angeles Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:38 AM 4/28/99 +0100, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jan Kamras >To: blml >Date: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 6:37 AM >Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles > > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>> Pass is a bid which may be suggested by the UI. >> >>How? Don't forget these days you have to "demonstrate" this. :-) >> > >The UI is that East thinks West has got a Club suit, with heart support. I >wonder if West would be making an unequivocal penalty double of 2S if this >is what he held. We do not know too much about their agreements, but I would >expect that a double of 2S might be encouraging partner to bid again. This >is something West cannot afford given the UI. Thus I believe Pass is a bid >which is demonstrably suggested by the UI. > East thnks West have a club suit and some heart tolerance. Agree with you on that part. X can very easy be a method to try to wake pd up to the fact that I dont have a snapdragon hand. Once u have used a snapdragon X you have normally limited your hand too and passing later is a normal action playing snapdragon since you have already got your story told. I would personally say that DBLE of 2Sp is pointed out from the UI. and in not choosing the DBL West is being Ethical IMO. The main reason to the disaster for NS is the mega flawed bid of 1NT promising a strong 1NT. And the at least to say fishy DBLE of 3He just how does South see 3He going for 2down with his/her piece of cheese 98xxxx Txx Qx AQ Look on the hand and you get the feeling for how many tricks can u take even vs a 15-17 NT on opps in 3He. If you can get 1down thats good but bet you would be worried about having Xed them into 530 all the time until you get your setting trick. That X is such a gambling action the Laws do NOT and should NOT give protection for it. NS should get to keep there earned score of -530 since the ONLY reason they are going for that number is a combination of 1NT and an awful X of 3He. Looks to me as South knew X to be a safe double shot take the Xed downtricks if thats the case or scream for the cops to bail me out if X was gonna be wrong. NS is NOT allowed to stop playing bridge only because of a ME Robert From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 05:21:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 05:21:26 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-19-29.imaginemedia.com [206.57.19.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05289 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 05:21:21 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05219 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:20:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:20:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199904281920.MAA05219@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert Nordgren wrote: |East thnks West have a club suit and some heart tolerance. Agree with you |on that part. | |X can very easy be a method to try to wake pd up to the fact that I dont |have a snapdragon hand. That seems farfetched. Double, when playing Snapdragon, ought likely be just extra values without clear direction. After all, you've already shown length in another suit and tolerance in a third, so your chances of being stacked in trumps is small, whereas interest in doing something with a 12 count will happen once in awhile. |Once u have used a snapdragon X you have normally limited your hand too and |passing later is a normal action playing snapdragon since you have already |got your story told. No, Snapdragon isn't usually played as a limited hand. It's usually not superstrong because everyone else has already bid, but it can be. The idea behind Snapdragon is to get the general form of your hand across in a contested auction; strength is nowhere near as big an issue as fit. |I would personally say that DBLE of 2Sp is pointed out from the UI. and in |not choosing the DBL West is being Ethical IMO. 1) We know that's not true. West stated why he passed instead of doubling. We know there's been a L73 violation. 2) For the academic point of what exactly is indicated or not by the UI, I think it's clear that without UI, double is clearcut: you have extra values and massive defense against spades. You've told partner about primary heart support. What can go wrong? With the UI, (a) you've not told about the primary hearts, (b) you don't want to encourage club bids, and (c) double is likely to be misinterpreted---it's not clearly spades anymore; it could be just general values at least somewhat suited to defense. Or it could be something conventional. No, it's clear that pass is suggested by the UI over double. But it doesn't matter, because it didn't damage N/S and we already know why West chose the action. If West hadn't told us his reasoning, we might not want to ding him so severely; this is the sort of case in which muddled ethical thinking could appear worse than it is. I think I'd just tell West that he goofed and to be more careful next time if he hadn't told us what he did. |The main reason to the disaster for NS is the mega flawed bid of 1NT |promising a strong 1NT. And the at least to say fishy DBLE of 3He just how |does South see 3He going for 2down with his/her piece of cheese | | 98xxxx | Txx | Qx | AQ | |Look on the hand and you get the feeling for how many tricks can u take |even vs a 15-17 NT on opps in 3He. I think the double is pretty obvious. The opponents have at most 17 HCP and eight hearts. Neither has great shape. I'd expect 3H to go down 9 times of 10, and go down more than one fairly often. Moreover, since we don't have a fit, they don't have a double fit, so their trick-taking ability should be limited. The opening lead is a problem. I'm not sure if I'd lead trumps or diamonds. I don't like the club position, so a tap might be better than cutting down ruffs. The DQ might, however, be the entry to lead the third round of trumps. Tough problem. So, yes, doubling is a gamble, but it's such a good gamble as not to be a problem. If we are going to say that N/S dug their own grave, then we have to point to the 1NT bid, which is clearly an error. Is it irrational? Not by my understanding of irrational; it's an error in judgment, but I understand the reasoning behind it, even if it is wrong. It's certainly not wild or gambling. It's just a goof. I think that causality in these cases ought to be broken by the occurrance of a severe error, but that leads to some tough calls. Is missing an obvious double squeeze a severe error? Even for, say, Kit Woolsey? I think the reason behind not including that criterion is exactly the problem of resolving what constitutes a severe error, but I'm just guessing about that. Maybe David S can clarify. Or maybe the writers just intended "irrational" to include major goofs... I don't know. Does anyone? --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 05:50:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 05:50:33 +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 FAA05394 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 05:50:26 +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 <19990428195019.LGYT6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:50:19 -0700 Message-ID: <37276793.A79E1DD2@home.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 12:54:59 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Opinions, Please References: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > > Opinions are solicited for the following UI situation: > > Flt B N. American Teams District Final (Strong Flt B players) > Nobody vul, N dealer > > KQJxx > KTx > ATxx > A > > Ax > J9x > Kxxx > xxxx > > (EW Passing) > N S > 1S 1nt* > 3D** ...3S > 3NT P > > *forcing > **game force My comments are now based on the clarification that 1NT* can be a 3 cd limit-raise, but not any form of single-raise. Let's see what might have caused S to hesitate: a) holding a 3 cd limit-raise and not being sure how to show it. This seems like the only hand where S can hold 3 cd spades. b) a hand much like the actual where raising D is an alternative. c) a hand that would like to bid 3NT but lacks a stopper in C or H (say xx xxx Kxxx KJxx). d) a weak hand with long C, hesitating between 3S and 4C. In either case, 3NT covers all the bases whereas 4S interferes with pard's intentions in d and possibly c and b. Even in a does 3NT save some space. There doesn't seem to be a case where 3NT puts you in a worse position than 4S would. I conclude that the hesitation does indeed suggest 3NT over 4S. It only remains to determine if 4S is an LA. I doubt we can find anyone who contends that bidding game in our own suit, that has been at least mildly supported by pard, in a GF situation on a hand that is minimum for the previous bidding, is *not* an LA. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 06:11:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:11:45 +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 GAA05454 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:11:38 +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 AA221200291; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:11:32 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA163040290; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:11:30 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:11:13 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Play of a board against wrong pair Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I want your help to clarify the assesment of responsabilities when a board is played againts the wrong pair. Next week in my club, pair 3E-W turned left instead of =20 right at the end of a row of tables, sat mistakenly at table 1 and played the board 19 against pair 1N-S. In the meanwhile, pair 7 E-W was waiting, thinking table 1 was still playing previous round. The error was discoverd after play the when I asked what they were waiting for. Pairs 1N-S and 3E-W had not previously play board 19. Pair 3E-W will normally play board 19 later against 14N-S. According to Law 15A, "The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board." =20 Law 15B: If any player plays a board he has previously played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the board is canceled both for his side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score. Law 12C: When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: =20 average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). =20 The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. The results I put: At this round, 1N-S wrote on the splip the score made at table (200). Pair 7E-W received an average plus (no way at fault ?) When 3E-W played against 14N-S, board 19 was cancelled. 14N-S wrote A+ on the slip (no way at fault) and 3E-W received -200 (the score obtained against 1N-S). Is this procedure correct ? If yes, I have a bad feeling about letting a top to 1N-S on board 19 (wrongly played) when Law 17 says that "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." =20 Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 06:16:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:16:17 +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 GAA05473 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:16:09 +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 <19990428201604.LOET6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:16:04 -0700 Message-ID: <37276D9C.AC97682F@home.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:20:44 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles References: <199904281920.MAA05219@corp.affiliation.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > If we are going to say that N/S > dug their own grave, then we have to point to the 1NT bid, > which is clearly an error. Is it irrational? Not by my > understanding of irrational; it's an error in judgment, but > I understand the reasoning behind it, even if it is wrong. If you take West at his self-damaging post mortem words, you have to take North at his. N and S were in agreement that 1NT showed a strong NT. That being the case, bidding it on a *weak* hand with 5-5 in the minors sure seems irrational to me :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 06:18:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:18:45 +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 GAA05493 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:18:39 +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 PAA00868 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 15:18:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0L2QE02C Wed, 28 Apr 99 15:00:09 Message-ID: <9904281500.0L2QE02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 99 15:00:09 Subject: OPINIONS, To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think that ruling that the fall of the cards is recurring is a very limited proposition. For instance: It seems to me that if the illegal contract was spades and the adjusted contract is spades [same direction] that the fall of the cards should be ruled to be the same. If the adjusted contract is hearts, the fall of the cards is different so the revoke is not repeated. If a different contestant were declaring the contract, the revoke would not be repeated. If it was a play that was illegal and adjusted, and it occurred before the revoke, then the revoke would not be recurring. And if the adjusted play occurred after the revoke, the revoke would be recurring since it was not touched by the adjustment. The following seems to be a good application of recurring events for determining adjusted scores: Offender has bid 2H illegally. Opponents compete and offender competes to 3H. The director rules the bid an infraction and determines that that the contract would be adjusted to 2S. However, the situation is similar as the opponents showed a disposition to not allow the contract stay in 2H so it is valid to adjust that it would be likely that they would compete over 2S. But the OS has demonstrated that they were willing to compete further when they were bidding hearts so it is appropriate to rule that they would compete to 3S but no further than 3S. Since the NOS is not worse off defending 3S than 2S, the adjusted contract is 3S. Roger Pewick B>> From: "Hirsch Davis" -s- B>> >Anyway, in adjusting the score, NS should not be given the B>> > benefit of South's correct heart guess if an incorrect guess is "at B>> > all probable." B>> > B>> B>> Why on earth not? He got it right at the table. B>_South_ got it right at the table, but _North_ will be playing 4S. B>Also, North only has one way to play hearts, as I remember the hands. B>Perhaps my analysis is faulty. B>> To phrase my question more generally, do what degree to we let what B>happened > at the table influence the adjusted score? In adjusting, do B>we throw out > good play by N/S and a misdefence by E/W if we rule that B>the contract is > altered? Or do we take these into consideration in B>determining the most > likely results had the infraction not occurred? B>We take them into account _to the extent they apply_. For example, if B>one side revokes, there's (normally) no reason to believe they wouldn't B>have revoked in a different contract, so we take that into account. B>(But I think we cancel the revoke if the revoking player would have B>become dummy. Anybody agree or disagree?) On the other hand, if, as B>above, South has a two-way guess in hearts in 3NT and gets it right, B>that doesn't affect how North will play 4S, where he has only a one-way B>guess in hearts. Even if North had a two-way guess, why should he get B>it right just because South did? B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 06:28:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:28:56 +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 GAA05513 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:28:50 +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 <19990428202845.LRZP6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:28:45 -0700 Message-ID: <37277095.C0BE63B1@home.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:33:25 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904281545.IAA03435@corp.affiliation.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think you are overcomplicating matters again, and that this leads you astray. Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > I think it does. It may not mean it, but it says it. > L12C1 begins, "When, owing to an irregularity, no result > can be obtained, ..." L12C2 begins, "When a director > awards an assigned score ... the score is, for a non-offending > side, the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred...." If there is no > "result that was likely" then L12C2 states (by direct word > substitution) that the score is no score. What do we do if > no score can be assigned? We pick an artificial score. > Literally, L12C1 says, "no result can be *obtained*," but > does that mean "for the board," or "for the assignment," > or either? I think the answer is either, so I think that > if there's no likely result, an artificial score is to be > assigned. (snip) > C1 says what to do if you have no result. C2 says what > result to pick and creates cases in which there is no result. > One can read C1 to state that it cannot be invoked from the > failing cases in C2, but then C2 apparently requires the > Director to assign no score at all. How does he assign no score? > Seems to me by invoking C1, which applies when there's no score. The intent of the law is clear by it's sequence, imo. If we're supposed to first try C2, and then fall back on C1 if we have trouble, why doesn't C2 come before C1?? It seems clear that they deal with different situations, and that C1 should only be used if there is no possibility whatsoever to determine *any* result, likely, probable or not (like a physically unplayable board). As soon as *some*, even if several or lots of more or less likely results, can be determined C2 must be applied. DS also hinted to this, ie that C2 doesn't end with "if you can't, please see C1 above" or similar. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 06:39:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:39:50 +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 GAA05535 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:39:43 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01627 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:39:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 16:39:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904282039.QAA22478@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA) Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil writes: > Next week in my club, pair 3E-W turned left instead of > right at the end of a row of tables, sat mistakenly at table > 1 and played the board 19 against pair 1N-S. In the > meanwhile, pair 7 E-W was waiting, thinking table 1 > was still playing previous round. The error was discoverd > after play the when I asked what they were waiting for. > Pairs 1N-S and 3E-W had not previously play board 19. > Pair 3E-W will normally play board 19 later against 14N-S. > According to Law 15A, "The Director normally allows > the score to stand if none of the four players have > previously played the board." > The results I put: > At this round, 1N-S wrote on the splip the score made > at table (200). Pair 7E-W received an average plus > (no way at fault ?) This is correct; pair 7 E-W is not responsible for alerting you to the fact that someone else has started playing their boards. > When 3E-W played against 14N-S, board 19 was > cancelled. 14N-S wrote A+ on the slip (no way at > fault) and 3E-W received -200 (the score obtained > against 1N-S). > Is this procedure correct ? If yes, I have a bad feeling > about letting a top to 1N-S on board 19 (wrongly > played) when Law 17 says that "Any contestant > remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily > responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play > at the table." This procedure is correct. You could impose a procedural penalty against the offending N-S pair (or against both pairs, since N-S were only "primarily" responsible, and E-W committed the specific infraction of going to the wrong table) for the offense of causing other pairs to take an expected score. -- 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 Apr 29 06:40:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:40:40 +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 GAA05549 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:40:34 +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 <19990428204025.LVNV6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:40:25 -0700 Message-ID: <37277351.B4F63C35@home.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:45:05 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <199904272304.TAA11752@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I h-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-t-e using L12A1. Most times it is used it > seems to be a cop-out to save TDs trouble in finding the right Law. You don't use a hammer to put a nail in the wall just because some people use it to smash peoples heads? :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 06:48:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:48:19 +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 GAA05564 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:48:10 +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 <19990428204759.LXTP6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:47:59 -0700 Message-ID: <37277517.DF10E7AB@home.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:52:39 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <199904272304.TAA11752@cfa183.harvard.edu> <37271FEB.BD4AC9FF@uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > So this point seems wrong to me. You cannot penalize one just because > a breach of L 41D... (and this example shows that the rules didnt want > to use 12A1 here. So I think, David you are right not using it.... I disagree with the conclusion, as so often due to faulty assumptions. You wouldn't use L12A1 to "penalize" anybody, just to adjust the score to something equitable. Do you see it as punishment that declarer doesn't get an undeserved extratrick due to an "irregularity" by his side? You would be right if L12A1 assigned a penalty *in addition* to restoring equity - but it doesn't. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 06:54:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:54:21 +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 GAA05587 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 06:54:15 +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 <19990428205410.LZOF6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:54:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3727768A.AFC32727@home.com> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 13:58:50 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Compuserve Bridge Forum Question References: <199904281502.LAA12243@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: RB wrote: > > You cannot penalize one just because a > > breach of L 41D.. > > I think we all agree with this. Nobody is talking about a penalty. > We are talking about redressing damage. Actually, I'm no longer so sure. L41 describes correct "procedure", which we say dummy didn't follow. Isn't this what "procedural" penalties are for? What about combining it with "redressing damage" and assigning a PP of one trick? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 08:12:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA05822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:12:10 +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 IAA05816 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 08:12:04 +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 RAA10133 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 17:11:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0O82S02R Wed, 28 Apr 99 17:14:37 Message-ID: <9904281714.0O82S02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 99 17:14:37 Subject: A COMMITT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wonder if anyone has stopped to consider that all of west's actions and thoughts could be explained by AI alone? Consider the auction with west isolated: 1D opening bid with diamonds 1H I want to compete and I have hearts 1S a responding hand with five? Spades X I've got a top heart and am willing to play 2H 1N Wow. He must have a good hand to bid 1N with only one heart stop. 2C clubs. I hear you, you are distributional for your 1H call 2S responder's got extra length in spades and some reasonable values to boot What does AI tell west? Both opponents have bid twice and said they have good values [you know the spades suck so they are somewhere else]. There is a good chance that 3H is unmakeable because of the likelihood of needing to ruff clubs. The best way to get partner to quit bidding is to pass. The most likely plus score is 2S provided they do not run and partner does not run. The biggest plus likely will be 2SX but would partner sit for it since there is a good chance he does not have much defense? But there is still the possibility that 2S will make given the strong hand in the north and the freebid in the south. Now take west's statement. He has called the director and said there was a misunderstanding. Then he says? We had a misunderstanding and I thought that the best way to defend 2S was to pass. This makes it sound like the two were connected which means that it is likely that they were. But, except for the part about misunderstanding, did not he 'come up with similar conclusions' when in isolation? The problem is that L16 requires the player to consider the meaning of UI when selecting their call to avoid taking a suggested LA. As for the UI, the only meaning that I can ascribe it is that partner's 2C call is likely to be on a 3 or 4 card suit and I am having great difficulty in seeing how it might suggest that there would be an advantage to pass, double, or 3H. The value of the heart honors is diminished if they are used to trump clubs. The only issue I can see is that of the fact there was a misunderstanding, which would have the effect of fear that the contract will reach unobtainable proportions thereby making it more attractive to put the breaks on. However, AI screams just as loudly , if not more so, that the limit of the hand has already been surpassed. So, on this point the issue is valid but the scales tip to no infraction. I think AI is screaming loudly enough that UI is not providing an advantage [73C]. Even with west's statement that the UI and his pass were connected, I am convinced that the pass was not an infraction of L16. Roger Pewick B>Robert Nordgren wrote: B>|East thnks West have a club suit and some heart tolerance. Agree with B>you |on that part. B>| B>|X can very easy be a method to try to wake pd up to the fact that I B>dont |have a snapdragon hand. B>That seems farfetched. Double, when playing Snapdragon, B>ought likely be just extra values without clear direction. B>After all, you've already shown length in another suit and B>tolerance in a third, so your chances of being stacked in B>trumps is small, whereas interest in doing something B>with a 12 count will happen once in awhile. B>|Once u have used a snapdragon X you have normally limited your hand too B>and |passing later is a normal action playing snapdragon since you have B>already |got your story told. B>No, Snapdragon isn't usually played as a limited hand. B>It's usually not superstrong because everyone else has B>already bid, but it can be. The idea behind Snapdragon B>is to get the general form of your hand across in a B>contested auction; strength is nowhere near as big an B>issue as fit. B>|I would personally say that DBLE of 2Sp is pointed out from the UI. and B>in |not choosing the DBL West is being Ethical IMO. B>1) We know that's not true. West stated why he passed B>instead of doubling. We know there's been a L73 B>violation. B>2) For the academic point of what exactly is indicated B>or not by the UI, I think it's clear that without UI, B>double is clearcut: you have extra values and massive B>defense against spades. You've told partner about B>primary heart support. What can go wrong? With the B>UI, (a) you've not told about the primary hearts, (b) B>you don't want to encourage club bids, and (c) double B>is likely to be misinterpreted---it's not clearly B>spades anymore; it could be just general values at B>least somewhat suited to defense. Or it could be B>something conventional. No, it's clear that pass is B>suggested by the UI over double. But it doesn't matter, B>because it didn't damage N/S and we already know why West B>chose the action. B>If West hadn't told us his reasoning, we might not want B>to ding him so severely; this is the sort of case in B>which muddled ethical thinking could appear worse than it is. B>I think I'd just tell West that he goofed and to be more B>careful next time if he hadn't told us what he did. -s- B> --Jeff B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 09:44:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:44:15 +1000 Received: from mailhub.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA06080 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:44:09 +1000 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:44:09 +1000 Received: (qmail 4359 invoked from network); 28 Apr 1999 23:44:02 -0000 Received: from pm02-100.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.100) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 28 Apr 1999 23:44:02 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990428194333.49875f40@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: A Committee in Los Angeles Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:20 PM 4/28/99 -0700, you wrote: >Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > >> If we are going to say that N/S >> dug their own grave, then we have to point to the 1NT bid, >> which is clearly an error. Is it irrational? Not by my >> understanding of irrational; it's an error in judgment, but >> I understand the reasoning behind it, even if it is wrong. > >If you take West at his self-damaging post mortem words, you have to >take North at his. N and S were in agreement that 1NT showed a strong >NT. That being the case, bidding it on a *weak* hand with 5-5 in the >minors sure seems irrational to me :-) > Not only does it look irrational it is in the area i would label gambling actions and u expect TD to bail you out if you are wrong. Just ask yourself what is the worst missbid pass telling u have sp tolerance or 1NT telling you have 3-4 pts more than u infact have. is lying a 2 of sp extra or lying about that you should have 3-4 more pts than u have. NS digged the grave for themself after this gambling 1NT bid. And imo they have to take the effects from it. when playing snapdragon you have limited your hand with the initial DBLE. Robert > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 10:10:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:10:39 +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 KAA06174 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:10:31 +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 10cePH-0004lw-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:10:23 +0000 Message-ID: <6sCjsqBcK6J3EwJv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:06:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904281545.IAA03435@corp.affiliation.COM> In-Reply-To: <199904281545.IAA03435@corp.affiliation.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >C1 says what to do if you have no result. C2 says what >result to pick and creates cases in which there is no result. >One can read C1 to state that it cannot be invoked from the >failing cases in C2, but then C2 apparently requires the >Director to assign no score at all. How does he assign no score? >Seems to me by invoking C1, which applies when there's no score. > >This is a very unusual case; there must be many possible >results with none likely. It's probably near impossible >for the offending side's score to be artificial as a result >of this interpretation; there will nearly always be at least >one score "at all probable." But it seems possible, albeit >rare, for there to be no "likely" scores. Ok, let us take an example case. Owing to an infraction, a pair reach 7H which is doubled and goes three off. The Committee decides the following are the scores with their percentage of likelihood that would be obtained without the infraction: 7H*-2 -500 10% 7H -2 -200 10% 6H*-1 -200 10% 6NT*-3 -800 10% 6NT -3 -300 10% 6H -1 -100 10% 7NT*-4 -1100 10% 7NT*-3 -800 10% 7D*-4 -1100 10% 6D*-3 -800 10% Now, this is a poor slam, but the pair concerned was reaching the slam before the infraction, so their opponents' infraction has not affected the fact that they will get a bad score. In the other room, their team- mates get -620 in 4H. How would I rule? I would give them -100 and -12 imps without worrying too much that the score is not particularly likely. I believe the definition of likely is flawed: I believe these scores are equally likely, not that none of them is likely. Steve would use a calculation thus: Cum -100 10% 10% -200 20% 30% -300 10% 40% -500 10% 50% -800 30% 80% -1100 20% 100% So he would say that a score of -300 is likely, so he would give them -300, and -14 imps. Now would you like to justify giving them +3 imps? I cannot believe that L12C2 means this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 12:20:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:20:26 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-19-29.imaginemedia.com [206.57.19.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA06436 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:20:17 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA08073 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:18:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 19:18:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199904290218.TAA08073@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |>C1 says what to do if you have no result. C2 says what |>result to pick and creates cases in which there is no result. |>One can read C1 to state that it cannot be invoked from the |>failing cases in C2, but then C2 apparently requires the |>Director to assign no score at all. How does he assign no score? |>Seems to me by invoking C1, which applies when there's no score. |> |>This is a very unusual case; there must be many possible |>results with none likely. It's probably near impossible |>for the offending side's score to be artificial as a result |>of this interpretation; there will nearly always be at least |>one score "at all probable." But it seems possible, albeit |>rare, for there to be no "likely" scores. | | Ok, let us take an example case. Owing to an infraction, a pair reach |7H which is doubled and goes three off. The Committee decides the |following are the scores with their percentage of likelihood that would |be obtained without the infraction: | | 7H*-2 -500 10% | 7H -2 -200 10% | 6H*-1 -200 10% |6NT*-3 -800 10% |6NT -3 -300 10% | 6H -1 -100 10% |7NT*-4 -1100 10% |7NT*-3 -800 10% | 7D*-4 -1100 10% | 6D*-3 -800 10% | | Now, this is a poor slam, but the pair concerned was reaching the slam |before the infraction, so their opponents' infraction has not affected |the fact that they will get a bad score. In the other room, their team- |mates get -620 in 4H. | | How would I rule? I would give them -100 and -12 imps without |worrying too much that the score is not particularly likely. I believe |the definition of likely is flawed: I believe these scores are equally |likely, not that none of them is likely. That seems fair, but is not clearly consistent with L12C. The NOS get a likely result, not an unlikely one. According to L12C, you simply are not allowed to assign the NOS a 10% (or whatever) result. Imagine this distribution of scores, each 10% likely: +2200, -50, -70, -80, -90, -100, -110, -120, -130, -140. Would you want to justify awarding +2200 to the NOS when 90% of the time, they'd get -100 +/- 50? In this case, the result from considering all unlikely results is a silly one. | Steve would use a calculation thus: | | Cum | -100 10% 10% | -200 20% 30% | -300 10% 40% | -500 10% 50% | -800 30% 80% |-1100 20% 100% I don't think he has the option if one defines "likely" to bean 30%. In that case, only -800 is a likely result, so he must award -800. If "at all probable" includes 10% cases, then he has to award a split score, -800 to the NOS and either -1100 or -100 to the OS (depending on which way they were sitting). In my example above, Steve's method would work fine. What he is doing is taking the 30% percentile result. I don't see how to justify that with the text of 12C, but it seems to me a sensible choice given free reign. | Now would you like to justify giving them +3 imps? I cannot believe |that L12C2 means this. I wouldn't like to, although it's happened (and once cost me an event). I can believe that L12C2 means it; I prefer that it doesn't. Actually, I can think of a reason why 12C would suggest giving the +3 IMPs. The lawmakers might not want to assign very unlikely scores ever. Imagine my above list, but make the frequency distribution 1%, 11%, 11%, 11%, .... Then, either you must set a lower bound and eliminate the 1% choice (then what if the choices are 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, ...?) or assign a result that's 1/11 as likely as any other, indeed is only 1% likely in the first place. I'm not saying that is sensible, but the algorithm you described produces that result. Hmmm...another reason why the lawmakers might've chosen this approach is to save director and AC time. It'd take hours to produce a chart like one above if one was trying to be diligent about it. What I'd really like to do is award A+/A- and award IMPs for the result at the other table, possibly relative to par. Par's a lot easier to compute than is the 30% percentile result. For what it's worth, just about any simple method for determining a single score out of a set of unlikely outcomes isn't going to work well. It's a really hard theoretical problem---unless we were willing to do lots of weighting and such, we are going to get an unreasonable answer for some set of possible results. And simple weighting won't help. In the 2200 case, just producing the average result, for example, would be silly--- the answer we want is to award something like -100, since within an IMP or two, that's what would happen nearly all the time. There are complicated methods to produce such results (Butler would even work this time) but we just don't have the resources to deal with it in committee. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 12:19:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:19:45 +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 MAA06423 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:19:25 +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 10cgPr-0005HD-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:19:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:27:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Play of a board against wrong pair References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: >I want your help to clarify the assesment of responsabilities >when a board is played againts the wrong pair. > >Next week in my club, pair 3E-W turned left instead of >right at the end of a row of tables, sat mistakenly at table >1 and played the board 19 against pair 1N-S. In the >meanwhile, pair 7 E-W was waiting, thinking table 1 >was still playing previous round. The error was discoverd >after play the when I asked what they were waiting for. > >Pairs 1N-S and 3E-W had not previously play board 19. >Pair 3E-W will normally play board 19 later against 14N-S. > >According to Law 15A, "The Director normally allows >the score to stand if none of the four players have >previously played the board." > >Law 15B: If any player plays a board he has previously >played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, >his second score on the board is canceled both for his >side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an >artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of >the opportunity to earn a valid score. > >Law 12C: When, owing to an irregularity, no result can >be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted >score according to responsibility for the irregularity: >average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints >in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in >pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus >(at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault >(see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). >The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. > >The results I put: >At this round, 1N-S wrote on the splip the score made >at table (200). Pair 7E-W received an average plus >(no way at fault ?) > >When 3E-W played against 14N-S, board 19 was >cancelled. 14N-S wrote A+ on the slip (no way at >fault) and 3E-W received -200 (the score obtained >against 1N-S). > >Is this procedure correct ? Nearly. I think a PP against 3E-W would be in order since two pairs failed to play the board because of their mistake. > If yes, I have a bad feeling >about letting a top to 1N-S on board 19 (wrongly >played) when Law 17 says that "Any contestant >remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily >responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play >at the table." The responsibility to play the correct board/opponents etc is not connected with any score obtained on any board, and should not be linked in any way. Furthermore, in a Mitchell it is not considered N/S's responsibility to check on whether it is the correct E/W pair. Furthermore, primarily means just that: the responsibility is actually shared. Furthermore L7D which says this is part of L7 which is solely about the board and the cards: no mention of the correct pairs. The mistake was 100% East-West's: why should we penalise North-South? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 12:19:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:19:47 +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 MAA06424 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:19:32 +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 10cgPr-0005HF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 02:19:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:28:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Play of a board against wrong pair References: <199904282039.QAA22478@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904282039.QAA22478@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >Laval_Dubreuil writes: >> Is this procedure correct ? If yes, I have a bad feeling >> about letting a top to 1N-S on board 19 (wrongly >> played) when Law 17 says that "Any contestant >> remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily >> responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play >> at the table." >This procedure is correct. You could impose a procedural penalty >against the offending N-S pair (or against both pairs, since N-S were >only "primarily" responsible, and E-W committed the specific infraction >of going to the wrong table) for the offense of causing other pairs to >take an expected score. No, it cannot be right to issue a PP against N/S. They did nothing wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 12:26:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:26:03 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA06470 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:25:53 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-38.ts-3.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.134]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id WAA22059; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:25:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37271A28.A9DF14A6@idt.net> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 07:24:40 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Goldsmith CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904272110.OAA02504@corp.affiliation.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I posted this committee result to the list, I did it because I personally found it difficult to determine just what would be fair to all parties. I might add that I am on a friendly basis with ALL of the principals in the case, and it turned out that one member of the EW team is a man I consider one of my closest friends. I didn't know he was on the team at the time of the committee, but I do not think it would have mattered anyway. I do know that he greeted me yesterday with, "Well, you cost me a win, Irv!" As I understand it, if the EW pair had been allowed to keep their +530, they would have won the event. I naturally don't feel very comfortable being a part of such a decision, because it is always preferable that winners and losers be determined at the table. The committee's decision, for good or ill, was to leave NS with their result of -530, since we felt that the 1NT rebid was the real cause of their poor result. In another post, there is an assertion that the WBF standard for breaking the chain is wild, gambling or reckless. This information was not available to the committee at the time. I certainly wouldn't consider North's bid wild or gambling, but I think I could go along with reckless. We also felt, however, that it was clear that without the MI, North would have had an easy 2C rebid. We also considered the EW bidding after the MI, and felt that West might very well have doubled 2S, and that East's bids of only 2C and 3C looked like he wasn't so sure of his explanation, so we felt that we shouldn't let EW get off scot free in this matter, so we gave them an average minus on the board (I.e., -3 IMPs). I hope that everyone will understand that the committee hashed this matter over for about 45 minutes, it was after the entire tournament was over and everyone, players, directors and committee members included, wanted to go home. We simply did the best we could, and hoped that it was fair. I was pretty well convinced that absolutely no one was going to be really happy with our decision, but perhaps that is an argument in favor of it. :) I have a few problems with Jeff's letter, and I think I absolutely MUST air them. I will insert my own comments after Jeff's. Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > Subject: A Committee in Los Angeles > > Irv Kostal wrote: > > |Yesterday I served on a committee in what seemed a very complicated > |case, and I wonder what BLML listers would think of it. I'll simply > |present the situation at first, so that I can hear what you all think. > |I'll present the committee's decision later, so you can blast us (if > |it's warranted). > > I have some more information on the case as I > got a call from a friend of one of the participants > Monday morning. Irv left out a few important, but > not crucial, facts. > What on earth does this mean? If it's important, it probably IS crucial! I don't get this, and I don't much like the assertion that I left important stuff out. I certainly tried to be thorough. > | North North to deal, NS Vulnerable > | J > | Ax > | KJxxx > | Kxxxx > |West East > |KQTxx A > |KJ9 Qxxxx > |Txxx Ax > |x Jxxxx > | South > | 98xxxx > | Txx > | Qx > | AQ > | > |the bidding: > |North East South West > |1D 1H 1S X * > |1N ** 2C 2S P > |P 3C P 3H > |P P X all pass > | > |* Alerted as Snapdragon, showing clubs with a heart tolerance > |** Alerted as showing a strong (14+ to 17) NT > | > |The MI by the East player, was brought to light at the end of the > |auction, and the director was called at that time. Play proceeded, and > |the result was +530 for EW. The director's ruling was Avg. + for NS, > |Avg.- for EW, i.e., +3 imps and -3 imps, respectively. EW appealed the > |director's ruling. > | > |The EW convention card says they play Rosencranz doubles, i.e., a heart > |honor and a willingness to play at least 2H, maybe more. The east > |player had been able to sit out a match, and had ostensibly used the > |time to read the card, but had apparently missed the Rosencranz note. > ... > > |The players were all quite competent, and one of them has considerable > |International experience. > > Stuff Irv doesn't mention: > > That's North, which matters. In what way does it matter? I hoped to have a discussion devoid of personalities, about the bridge issues here, and simply wanted to make the point that the level of play at the table was QUITE sophisticated. Can it matter which one of the players is the one with the International experience? I don't see how. > > During the committee hearing, West said that he passed 2S > "because he knew there had been a misunderstanding and he > wanted to get his partner to pass." > This is the statement that really gets my dander up. If West did indeed make this statement, I DID NOT HEAR IT. I also have consulted with one other member of the committee, and HE does not recall this statement either. What West DID say about his failure to double was that he thought he had the opponents in a good spot, and didn't want to chase them into a better spot. If I HAD heard the statement Jeff attributes to him, you can be sure I would have wanted to nail him to the wall for such a blatant use of UI. Jeff seems to have put quite a lot of credence in his second hand (or is it third hand) information, and certainly hasn't bothered to check his facts with me! > I think a redouble at North's second turn would have > promised three spades. Any other action denies three. > I'm not certain of this; North plays support doubles > in all other partnerships of which I know (one of North's > regular partners told me this) but normally does not play > 12-14 NTs, so it's possible that in this one case that > support doubles were off. > > ---------------------------- > My take on the matter: > > West is sufficiently experienced to know better, although > he obviously didn't. I'd give him a significant PP to get > him to start learning about his ethical requirements. I > don't think, however, that his actions led to N/S's bad > result, so they don't get redress. If he had doubled 2S > (obvious without UI, isn't it?), N/S gets to 3Dx, which > goes for about 500, roughly the same as the actual result. > I'd give West 1/2 board (double what's normally given > around LA) PP as his offense was blatant and intentional. > That'll teach him to be so candid :) This is only appropriate IF West was in fact so candid. I already know just how distorted things can get because I had to correct the misinformation about the hearing with my friend who (it turned out) was a member of the EW team. Everything he had heard about the committee was in error! I reiterate, 2nd or 3rd hand information is NOT a sound basis for Jeff to be announcing ANY take on the matter! In another post, Jeff says, about the failure to double 2S, "I love it when someone cheats and damages himself :)" I personally HATE it when people throw around charges of cheating on the basis of second hand, and quite possibly inaccurate, information. I also feel that these UI problems frequently put players into difficult situations, where they make "battlefield" decisions they might regret after longer consideration. To accuse West of cheating because of this is going quite a bit too far, IMO. Perhaps he was influenced by the MI, but surely we can imagine an argument being made, had he doubled, that the double was based on the MI, and he was trying to shut his partner up! Who among us can claim that we would ALWAYS be completely objective in such a situation? In truth, I suspect the both West and East WERE influenced by MI on this board, West by the erroneous explanation, and East perhaps by picking up on something in partner's body language. This is part of the reason the committee gave them an average minus on the board. However, we did not think they were being cheaters, merely humans. I think Jeff is way off base here, and probably owes a few people an apology, starting with the members of the committee. > > North's 1NT bid was a clear blunder and led directly to > N/S's bad result. If North had passed the double, there'd > be a good chance of N/S's going plus on the hand; as East, > I'd bid 4C. What would happen thereafter is not clear. > West can't pass (use of UI), and I don't think East would > pass 4H with such poor hearts. That'd provide at least 300 > to N/S. > > How bad a blunder is 1NT? Is it enough to sever the connection > between the UI and N/S's bad result? I think that depends on > the local rules. It's not a "wild swinging action," I think, > but a poorly judged choice. The reason North claimed to have > bid 1NT is fear that 1Sx was going to be passed out. North > though that South would read the 1NT bid as a retreat, not a > strong NT. I belive North is not extremely familiar with > 12-14 NTs; that's the basis of the error, I think. This is definitely not true. North won a world championship playing two systems, depending on vulnerability. One of the systems was forcing club, with light openings, and 10-12 NT, at least when not vul. I think this north should be expected to be quite conversant with WK NT. > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 15:07:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 15:07:39 +1000 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA07059 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 15:07:32 +1000 Received: from hdavis (216-164-230-170.s170.tnt7.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.230.170]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA27420 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:07:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001001be91fe$22186f60$aae6a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "blml" References: <3.0.1.32.19990425222319.00702284@pop.mindspring.com> <37276793.A79E1DD2@home.com> Subject: Re: Opinions, Please Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:07:07 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Jan Kamras To: blml Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 3:54 PM Subject: Re: Opinions, Please [snip] > My comments are now based on the clarification that 1NT* can be a 3 cd > limit-raise, but not any form of single-raise. > > Let's see what might have caused S to hesitate: > a) holding a 3 cd limit-raise and not being sure how to show it. This > seems like the only hand where S can hold 3 cd spades. > b) a hand much like the actual where raising D is an alternative. > c) a hand that would like to bid 3NT but lacks a stopper in C or H (say > xx xxx Kxxx KJxx). > d) a weak hand with long C, hesitating between 3S and 4C. > > In either case, 3NT covers all the bases whereas 4S interferes with > pard's intentions in d and possibly c and b. Even in a does 3NT save > some space. There doesn't seem to be a case where 3NT puts you in a > worse position than 4S would. > I conclude that the hesitation does indeed suggest 3NT over 4S. > It only remains to determine if 4S is an LA. I doubt we can find anyone > who contends that bidding game in our own suit, that has been at least > mildly supported by pard, in a GF situation on a hand that is minimum > for the previous bidding, is *not* an LA. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 15:47:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 15:47:56 +1000 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA07108 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 15:47:50 +1000 Received: from hdavis (209-122-254-197.s197.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.254.197]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA00586 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002701be9203$c5d9e020$c5fe7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Subject: Re: Opinions, Please Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:47:30 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmm....my first send of this left my own comments off. Some might think this was a good thing. Here's the full post. Hirsch ----- Original Message ----- From: Jan Kamras To: blml Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 3:54 PM Subject: Re: Opinions, Please [snip] > My comments are now based on the clarification that 1NT* can be a 3 cd > limit-raise, but not any form of single-raise. > > Let's see what might have caused S to hesitate: > a) holding a 3 cd limit-raise and not being sure how to show it. This > seems like the only hand where S can hold 3 cd spades. > b) a hand much like the actual where raising D is an alternative. > c) a hand that would like to bid 3NT but lacks a stopper in C or H (say > xx xxx Kxxx KJxx). > d) a weak hand with long C, hesitating between 3S and 4C. > > In either case, 3NT covers all the bases whereas 4S interferes with > pard's intentions in d and possibly c and b. Even in a does 3NT save > some space. There doesn't seem to be a case where 3NT puts you in a > worse position than 4S would. > I conclude that the hesitation does indeed suggest 3NT over 4S. > It only remains to determine if 4S is an LA. I doubt we can find anyone > who contends that bidding game in our own suit, that has been at least > mildly supported by pard, in a GF situation on a hand that is minimum > for the previous bidding, is *not* an LA. > You have made a very dangerous argument here. You have correctly pointed out that the 3N bid covers more of the cases than the 4S bid. However, this does not mean that the 3N call was suggested by the hesitation. We don't adjust a bid because it works in more cases, we adjust because the UI makes it more likely to be successful. If a bid is a priori more likely to be successful because it works in more cases, it's simply a good bid. Good bidding is still legal, even in the face of UI, as long as it is not suggested by the UI. Let's take another look at your list and see the information that we received from the UI. First, the 3S call could be made on either 2 or 3 spades. Does the UI tell us which it is? No, both cases are on your list of possible causes of the hesitation. The 3S call could be made on a bare minimum range, up to a 12 count. Does the UI tell us which end of the range the bidder has? No, both ends of this range appear on your list. Does the UI suggest that one call will be more successful than the other? How can it? We don't know more about responder's point range and we don't know more about responder's trump holding, even with the UI. Exactly what information has the hesitation imparted that would suggest one bid over the other? Will one call be more successful than the other. Yes, 3N leaves more options open. However, this only means that 3N is a better call, hesitation or no hesitation. IMO, it's sufficiently better that I don't even like 4S as a LA. (However, the number of people who would appear to consider it a LA is sufficient that I would have to say it is one by definition, like it or not.) It doesn't really matter though, as long as 3N is not suggested over 4S by UI. Your argument illustrates that 3N is a better call than 4S. It does not indicate that 3N was suggested by the UI. Sorry, no adjustment. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 17:24:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA07327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:24:28 +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 RAA07322 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:24:19 +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 <19990429072410.SZLZ6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:24:10 -0700 Message-ID: <37280A33.7D84C7C4@home.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 00:28:51 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: Opinions, Please References: <002701be9203$c5d9e020$c5fe7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > If a bid is a priori more likely to be > successful because it works in more cases, it's simply a good bid. Yes, but if that likelyhood is demonstrably increased by the UI, it also becomes "suggested over" and thus disallowed. > First, the 3S call could be made on either 2 or 3 spades. But only with 3 if 10-12 range. This reduces the number of 3 carders a lot. > > Does the UI suggest that one call will be more successful than the > other? > How can it? We don't know more about responder's point range and we > don't know more about > responder's trump holding, even with the UI. Exactly what information > has > the hesitation imparted that would suggest one bid over the other? The game is not about "point range" alone, as you seem to suggest. The hesitation has expressed *uncertainty* about the chosen action. Therefore the most flexible LA by pard has improved *relative to other LAs*. > Will one call be more successful than the other. Yes, 3N leaves more > options > open. However, this only means that 3N is a better call, hesitation > or no hesitation. There is a major misunderstanding here, imo. Say a priori 3NT is a 60% and 4S a 40% action. With the UI say 3NT is 85% and 4S is 15%. As per your interpretation 3NT was and still is "the best" bid, thus should be allowed. This however is not what the law says. The UI has improved the odds of 3NT relative to 4S and has thus "suggested it over" (and 4s is an LA). I beleive we have discussed this point at length a while ago, and thought it was resolved accordingly. Did I miss something? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 18:01:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:01:52 +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 SAA07392 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:01:46 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-46.uunet.be [194.7.95.46]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA29463 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:01:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37280EF5.C65D2CB6@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:49:09 +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: Play of a board against wrong pair References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bonjour Laval, Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > Hi all, > > I want your help to clarify the assesment of responsabilities > when a board is played againts the wrong pair. > > Next week in my club, pair 3E-W turned left instead of Last week, I hope you mean, unless you have timetravel to enable you to ask our opinion before the facts ! > right at the end of a row of tables, sat mistakenly at table > 1 and played the board 19 against pair 1N-S. In the > meanwhile, pair 7 E-W was waiting, thinking table 1 > was still playing previous round. The error was discoverd > after play the when I asked what they were waiting for. > Quite common occurences, and therefor quite important to get it right. > Pairs 1N-S and 3E-W had not previously play board 19. Otherwise of course the second result is cancelled. > Pair 3E-W will normally play board 19 later against 14N-S. > > According to Law 15A, "The Director normally allows > the score to stand if none of the four players have > previously played the board." > Yep. > Law 15B: If any player plays a board he has previously > played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, > his second score on the board is canceled both for his > side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an > artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of > the opportunity to earn a valid score. > Will not happen, because you won't let them. > Law 12C: When, owing to an irregularity, no result can > be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted > score according to responsibility for the irregularity: > average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints > in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in > pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus > (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault > (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). > The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance. > Indeed applicable to 14 N-S and 7E-W. > The results I put: > At this round, 1N-S wrote on the splip the score made > at table (200). Pair 7E-W received an average plus > (no way at fault ?) > Yep. > When 3E-W played against 14N-S, board 19 was > cancelled. 14N-S wrote A+ on the slip (no way at > fault) and 3E-W received -200 (the score obtained > against 1N-S). > Yep. In my program, I can change the two lines 1-7 and 14-3 into 1-3 and 14-7. Then it is a normal -200 on one line and Av+/Av+ on the other. It is also possible to let pairs 14 and 7 play the board against oneanother, and I have often done so. I don't even believe the pairs can object to this, when I apply L5B. > Is this procedure correct ? Yes. > If yes, I have a bad feeling > about letting a top to 1N-S on board 19 (wrongly > played) Why ? They have played the board and earned their result. > when Law 17 says that "Any contestant > remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily > responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play > at the table." > And indeed you are allowed to award PP's for the breach of this article. Personally, I don't, and just give those when NS play the wrong boards. I don't believe NS should check the pair numbers of their opponents, unless those are tattood to their foreheads. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 19:51:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA07567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:51:35 +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 TAA07562 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:51:29 +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 LAA18186 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:51:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199904290951.LAA18186@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, 29 Apr 1999 11:52:52 +0200 Subject: Established revoke? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please comment on the following situations: (in the NL, defenders may ask declarer about a possible revoke, but not one another) 1. South, declarer in a spade contract, plays a diamond which is ruffed by West. East, suspecting that his partner has another diamond, waits several seconds before playing to this trick. West wakes up, shows his diamond and the establishment of a revoke is prevented. 2. South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the revoke to become established. Has East violated L61B? If not, are there other laws preventing him to get away with murder? Cheers, JP From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 21:47:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:47:33 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA07934 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:47:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cpHe-0005hF-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:47:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:33:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Established revoke? References: <199904290951.LAA18186@hera.frw.uva.nl> In-Reply-To: <199904290951.LAA18186@hera.frw.uva.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >Please comment on the following situations: >(in the NL, defenders may ask declarer about a possible revoke, >but not one another) > >1. >South, declarer in a spade contract, plays a diamond which is >ruffed by West. East, suspecting that his partner has another >diamond, waits several seconds before playing to this trick. West >wakes up, shows his diamond and the establishment of a revoke is >prevented. I rule this as a breach of L61B. The asking was tacit! >2. >South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed >by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another >diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any >diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one >who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the >revoke to become established. This is legal since the lawmakers permit it! In my view, this Law is bad: either defenders should be allowed to ask anyone or no-one. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 21:47:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:47:25 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA07926 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:47:17 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cpHb-0005hD-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:47:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:58:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opinions, Please References: <002701be9203$c5d9e020$c5fe7ad1@hdavis> <37280A33.7D84C7C4@home.com> In-Reply-To: <37280A33.7D84C7C4@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >There is a major misunderstanding here, imo. Say a priori 3NT is a 60% >and 4S a 40% action. With the UI say 3NT is 85% and 4S is 15%. As per >your interpretation 3NT was and still is "the best" bid, thus should be >allowed. This however is not what the law says. The UI has improved the >odds of 3NT relative to 4S and has thus "suggested it over" (and 4s is >an LA). I beleive we have discussed this point at length a while ago, >and thought it was resolved accordingly. Did I miss something? This is the effect of the Law as I understand it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 21:47:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:47:32 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA07937 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:47:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cpHe-0005hb-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:47:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:05:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904272110.OAA02504@corp.affiliation.COM> <37271A28.A9DF14A6@idt.net> In-Reply-To: <37271A28.A9DF14A6@idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal wrote: >I belive North is not extremely familiar with >> 12-14 NTs; that's the basis of the error, I think. >This is definitely not true. North won a world championship playing two >systems, depending on vulnerability. One of the systems was forcing >club, with light openings, and 10-12 NT, at least when not vul. I think >this north should be expected to be quite conversant with WK NT. The principles surrounding the use of the mini NT and its effects are not the same as the principles surrounding the use of the weak NT and its effects. To have played a mini NT proves nothing about a player's reactions to a weak NT. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 21:47:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:47:32 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA07936 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:47:24 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cpHe-0005hE-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:47:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:26:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904290218.TAA08073@corp.affiliation.COM> In-Reply-To: <199904290218.TAA08073@corp.affiliation.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >|Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >| >|>C1 says what to do if you have no result. C2 says what >|>result to pick and creates cases in which there is no result. >|>One can read C1 to state that it cannot be invoked from the >|>failing cases in C2, but then C2 apparently requires the >|>Director to assign no score at all. How does he assign no score? >|>Seems to me by invoking C1, which applies when there's no score. >|> >|>This is a very unusual case; there must be many possible >|>results with none likely. It's probably near impossible >|>for the offending side's score to be artificial as a result >|>of this interpretation; there will nearly always be at least >|>one score "at all probable." But it seems possible, albeit >|>rare, for there to be no "likely" scores. >| >| Ok, let us take an example case. Owing to an infraction, a pair reach >|7H which is doubled and goes three off. The Committee decides the >|following are the scores with their percentage of likelihood that would >|be obtained without the infraction: >| >| 7H*-2 -500 10% >| 7H -2 -200 10% >| 6H*-1 -200 10% >|6NT*-3 -800 10% >|6NT -3 -300 10% >| 6H -1 -100 10% >|7NT*-4 -1100 10% >|7NT*-3 -800 10% >| 7D*-4 -1100 10% >| 6D*-3 -800 10% >| >| Now, this is a poor slam, but the pair concerned was reaching the slam >|before the infraction, so their opponents' infraction has not affected >|the fact that they will get a bad score. In the other room, their team- >|mates get -620 in 4H. >| >| How would I rule? I would give them -100 and -12 imps without >|worrying too much that the score is not particularly likely. I believe >|the definition of likely is flawed: I believe these scores are equally >|likely, not that none of them is likely. > >That seems fair, but is not clearly consistent with L12C. The NOS >get a likely result, not an unlikely one. According to L12C, you >simply are not allowed to assign the NOS a 10% (or whatever) result. Why not? The WBF LC have never said that a likely result is a 33% one. That is merely the flawed conclusion of one particular authority. It does not make it a given. I think that 12 equally likely scores are "likely", while I think that if you have a 93% score and an 8% score, the 8% score is not "likely". >Imagine this distribution of scores, each 10% likely: > >+2200, -50, -70, -80, -90, -100, -110, -120, -130, -140. > >Would you want to justify awarding +2200 to the NOS when >90% of the time, they'd get -100 +/- 50? In this case, >the result from considering all unlikely results is a >silly one. Now hold it right there! Why is it a silly one? I do think you need to decide what you expect from this Law. Do you want equity? Do you want the NOs never to suffer? What do you want? If you want equity, you could go along the L12C3 route. Give them 10% of each of the scores you mention, weight it slightly towards the NOs, and there you are. Do you want the NOs never to suffer? In which case, then, +2200 is the only acceptable ruling. Without the infraction, they *might* have got 2200: their chance to do so was taken away. What, I suspect, most people want is one of two things: either an equity based ruling [use L12C3, and preferably expand its use so that Zones may permit DICs to use it] or a ruling that gives the NOs no suffering within reason, but without being extreme. >| Steve would use a calculation thus: >| >| Cum >| -100 10% 10% >| -200 20% 30% >| -300 10% 40% >| -500 10% 50% >| -800 30% 80% >|-1100 20% 100% > >I don't think he has the option if one defines "likely" to bean 30%. >In that case, only -800 is a likely result, so he must award -800. >If "at all probable" includes 10% cases, then he has to award a >split score, -800 to the NOS and either -1100 or -100 to the OS >(depending on which way they were sitting). > >In my example above, Steve's method would work fine. What he is >doing is taking the 30% percentile result. I don't see how to >justify that with the text of 12C, but it seems to me a sensible >choice given free reign. > >| Now would you like to justify giving them +3 imps? I cannot believe >|that L12C2 means this. > >I wouldn't like to, although it's happened (and once cost me an event). >I can believe that L12C2 means it; I prefer that it doesn't. Actually, >I can think of a reason why 12C would suggest giving the +3 IMPs. The >lawmakers might not want to assign very unlikely scores ever. Which "lawmakers"? The lawmakers have never defined "likely" in the totally restrictive way that the ACBL LC has. Don't blame the "lawmakers" for this. > Imagine >my above list, but make the frequency distribution 1%, 11%, 11%, 11%, .... >Then, either you must set a lower bound and eliminate the 1% choice >(then what if the choices are 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, ...?) or assign a result >that's 1/11 as likely as any other, indeed is only 1% likely in the >first place. I'm not saying that is sensible, but the algorithm >you described produces that result. Hmmm...another reason why the >lawmakers might've chosen this approach is to save director and >AC time. It'd take hours to produce a chart like one above if >one was trying to be diligent about it. My heart bleeds. So long as the principles of ruling are understood it is not necessary to take a long time on a chart. The actual ruling would be quicker without going through the details. Suppose that you have a set of scores, as you did above, like +2200, - 100, -110, -120 and so on. A TD/AC considers that all are possible, none very likely. So if you want the justice for NOs approach, you award +2200: if you want my practical approach, I consider whether +2200 falls inside my personal definition of likely: if it does I give them +2200, if it does not I give them -110: if you want the Willner approach you don't fool around with a chart you just give them -120. Why on earth should you give them +3 imps? >What I'd really like to do is award A+/A- and award IMPs for the >result at the other table, possibly relative to par. Par's a lot >easier to compute than is the 30% percentile result. That's one hell of a statement! Anyway, at least this shows what you really want: you want L12C3! >For what it's worth, just about any simple method for determining >a single score out of a set of unlikely outcomes isn't going to >work well. It's a really hard theoretical problem---unless we >were willing to do lots of weighting and such, we are going to >get an unreasonable answer for some set of possible results. >And simple weighting won't help. In the 2200 case, just >producing the average result, for example, would be silly--- >the answer we want is to award something like -100, since >within an IMP or two, that's what would happen nearly all >the time. There are complicated methods to produce such >results (Butler would even work this time) but we just don't >have the resources to deal with it in committee. Yes, you do, so long as you do not complicate it the way you seem to wish to do. You understand the principles: you get some feel for the results that might have been reached and their likelihood: then you pick a number. You don't do it via complicated algorithms. We are merely talking principles here. The practice is simple once the principles are understood, so long as the people deciding do not adopt a petty approach. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 22:28:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:28:33 +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 WAA08104 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:28:26 +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 10cpvQ-000Fh4-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:28:20 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:04:20 +0100 Message-ID: <90A8793454EED21187920060972614BB012117@BRIDGE> From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Established revoke? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:04:17 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >2. > >South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed > >by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another > >diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any > >diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one > >who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the > >revoke to become established. > > This is legal since the lawmakers permit it! In my view, this Law > is > bad: either defenders should be allowed to ask anyone or no-one. > > > ######## I still believe that East's question is UI for West. (I seem > to recall from somewhere, perhaps the old Commentary on the Laws or > some EBU training material, that such a question to declarer that > wakes up a defender was illegal.) Thus, the only time that a defender > can safely use his L61B right to query declarer is when his partner > has followed to the trick. ############### From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 29 23:10:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 23:10:30 +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 XAA08212 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 23:10:24 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA03827 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 14:09:48 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 29 Apr 99 14:09 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Opinions, Please 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: <37280A33.7D84C7C4@home.com> Jan Kamras > > There is a major misunderstanding here, imo. Say a priori 3NT is a 60% > and 4S a 40% action. With the UI say 3NT is 85% and 4S is 15%. As per > your interpretation 3NT was and still is "the best" bid, thus should be > allowed. This however is not what the law says. The UI has improved the > odds of 3NT relative to 4S and has thus "suggested it over" (and 4s is > an LA). I beleive we have discussed this point at length a while ago, > and thought it was resolved accordingly. Did I miss something? It was certainly not resolved as above (though it may well have petered out with this as the majority opinion). And now..a boring treatise on suggested LAs. An action that can be readily identified as a "40% action" when a "60% action" exists is not one that "a significant minority of peers would seriously consider" let alone one that "25/30% of peers would take". In situations where such percentages are known the 40% action cannot be considered an LA (I don't consider the current case one of those situations BTW). I greet the idea that an action can be "more suggested over" the "AI suggested action" with the same mixture of bafflement and irritation as Alice when offered "more tea" by the Mad Hatter - it makes no sense in the context. Where actions are very close (eg 49/51) then one's peers might indeed consider/take the marginally inferior action, perhaps influenced by a desire to do the same/a different thing to that at the other table(s). If you feel that this would sometimes happen in 60/40 situations then set the threshold at 65/35 or 70/30 (55/45 is my personal choice) Where the %age accuracy cannot be reliably determined eg (50%+/-5,50%+/-5) the range overlap admits obvious LAs. In order to make a "suggestion" the UI must modify the known %age past eachother. Thus 60/40 becoming 90/10 is UI neutral 52/48 becoming 48/52 is UI suggested. Obviously in cases with more than 2 alternatives the numbers become more complex but the same principle will work. It helps to be able to run a constrained simulation based on AI then on UI (eg before AI all hands with xx,Hx,xxx spades and 6-9 points, with UI exclude hands with xxx spades). Before After Action A: 45% 43% Action B: 35% 10% Action C: 20% 47% (Assume point a board scoring for now, otherwise further refinement is needed to convert the %ages to net imps/net MPs or whatever) I would generally permit action A as 45/35 exceeds my personal 55/45 preference (the exception is when the cumulative margin of error, expected of the player in question's calculations of A and B, exceeds 2%. C is a suggested alternative and should lead to an adjustment. Note 1: In the above example the UI holds hands to a subset of the AI, this will not always be the case but the basic theory can still be applied. Note 2: If the UI cannot be expressed as a constraint on deals then I don't think it can be said to suggest anything. Note 3: The "typical expected margin of error" on such calculations will vary with the standard of player eg Novice +/-20, Expert +/-3, Supremely gifted statistician +/-1, GIB +/-0. Note 4: Most UI cases do not require this level of analysis but while it is still somewhat subjective it does provide a possible methodology. Obviously this is my own private methodology rather than one adopted by any regulatory body. However, it is my attempt to render mathematical the somewhat vague wording of the law (to understand why you will have to wait for my diatribe on "peers"). I've never had a UI ruling against me so my apologies in advance to the Appeal Panel who first encounter this approach. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 01:30:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 01:30:50 +1000 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 BAA10765 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 01:30:40 +1000 Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #D3521) with ESMTP id <0FAY00GR0J2YM3@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:30:34 +0200 (MET DST) 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 RAA27417 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:30:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from angad.tn.tudelft.nl by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl with SMTP (16.6/15.6) id AA10792; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 17:28:06 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:29:18 +0200 From: Evert Angad-Gaur Subject: Re: Established revoke? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <372888DE.A76B9A23@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: <199904290951.LAA18186@hera.frw.uva.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hallo Jan Peter, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > Please comment on the following situations: > (in the NL, defenders may ask declarer about a possible revoke, > but not one another) > > 1. > South, declarer in a spade contract, plays a diamond which is > ruffed by West. East, suspecting that his partner has another > diamond, waits several seconds before playing to this trick. West > wakes up, shows his diamond and the establishment of a revoke is > prevented. > If East does like you waits delibrately then I will treat it as if he askes his partner West abou the revoke which is forbidden and then rule 63. > > 2. > South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed > by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another > diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any > diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one > who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the > revoke to become established. > It is allowed according to the rules. Normally nothing to do about this. But for people who like for problems you can try to look if East asking was intended to know if West had revoked (Difficult, difficult !!). > > Has East violated L61B? If not, are there other laws preventing him > to get away with murder? > > Cheers, JP Evert. -- S.E.Angad-Gaur, tel.: 015-2786150 email:evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl fax.: 015-2781694 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 02:02:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:02:57 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA11005 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:02:48 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA02508 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA13305 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:02:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904291602.MAA13305@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Furthermore, in a Mitchell it is not considered N/S's > responsibility to check on whether it is the correct E/W pair. I think this is dependent on the SO. Over here, it is considered the NS responsibility to check on the EW pair number. While I don't recall a PP given for failure to do so, I think I recall seeing average-minus given, and I'd be astounded if a NS pair were given an average-plus. (I think average is about right: partly at fault.) Perhaps my experience is atypical. Of course artificial scores will only be given to NS if EW have already played the board. In other cases, the NS table result will stand. I think a small PP (1/10 board) would be entirely appropriate. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 02:11:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:11:33 +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 CAA11023 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:11:25 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa10234; 29 Apr 99 9:10 PDT To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Established revoke? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:04:17 PDT." <90A8793454EED21187920060972614BB012117@BRIDGE> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:10:42 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904290910.aa10234@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > DWS wrote: > > > > >2. > > >South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed > > >by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another > > >diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any > > >diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one > > >who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the > > >revoke to become established. > > > > This is legal since the lawmakers permit it! In my view, this Law > > is bad: either defenders should be allowed to ask anyone or no-one. > > > > > > ######## I still believe that East's question is UI for West. (I seem > > to recall from somewhere, perhaps the old Commentary on the Laws or > > some EBU training material, that such a question to declarer that > > wakes up a defender was illegal.) Thus, the only time that a defender > > can safely use his L61B right to query declarer is when his partner > > has followed to the trick. ############### Actually, I believe there's UI in case 1, but not in case 2. In case 1, East transmitted the information that something about his hand made him suspect West revoked. Presumably, this wouldn't happen if East's diamonds were long, so East's actions put an upper limit on the number of diamonds he can have. This is UI for West. However, in case 2, the only information transmitted is that East knows how to count to thirteen. If both declarer and partner show out, and one or both of them revoked, then East obviously will know that somebody goofed (although he won't know who). The fact that he figured this out doesn't say anything about his hand, so there's no UI here. By the way, what was the purpose of putting L61B in the Laws? Is it because we don't like the UI that gets transmitted when questions are asked, or is it because don't like players trying to prevent irregularities committed by their partners? It seems that it must be the first answer (otherwise we wouldn't let dummy inquire about declarer's revokes); so based on that, I don't see a problem with East asking a question in case 2, since there's no UI involved. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 02:12:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:12:08 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA11038 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:11:59 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA02828 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA13320 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:12:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:12:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904291612.MAA13320@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jeff Goldsmith > In my example above, Steve's method would work fine. What he is > doing is taking the 30% percentile result. I don't see how to > justify that with the text of 12C, but it seems to me a sensible > choice given free reign. Actually the 33.3 percentile result (1/3) for "likely" and 16.7 percentile (1/6) for "at all probable." The fractions come from the ACBL LC; other authorities may have different definitions. While I don't claim the language of L12C2 is unambiguous that this is correct, it is 1) sensible, 2) at least consistent with the language, and 3) the method the language suggests to me. Yes, building the probability table may be hard if there are lots of possible results. Reasonable people will no doubt disagree on what values to use. But even if one makes just a cursory effort at estimating the probabilities, the outcome is a lot fairer than an artificial score. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 02:15:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:15:59 +1000 Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil ([131.158.7.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA11056 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:15:53 +1000 Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:10:09 -0400 Message-ID: <008a01be925a$c0b2ae40$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "blml" References: <002701be9203$c5d9e020$c5fe7ad1@hdavis> <37280A33.7D84C7C4@home.com> Subject: Re: Opinions, Please Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:10:08 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Jan Kamras To: blml Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 3:28 AM Subject: Re: Opinions, Please > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > If a bid is a priori more likely to be > > successful because it works in more cases, it's simply a good bid. > > Yes, but if that likelyhood is demonstrably increased by the UI, it also > becomes "suggested over" and thus disallowed. > Agreed. > > First, the 3S call could be made on either 2 or 3 spades. > > But only with 3 if 10-12 range. This reduces the number of 3 carders a > lot. > Agreed. > > > > Does the UI suggest that one call will be more successful than the > other? > > How can it? We don't know more about responder's point range and we > > don't know more about > > responder's trump holding, even with the UI. Exactly what information > has > > the hesitation imparted that would suggest one bid over the other? > > The game is not about "point range" alone, as you seem to suggest. The > hesitation has expressed *uncertainty* about the chosen action. > Therefore the most flexible LA by pard has improved *relative to other > LAs*. > Uncertainty in and of itself does not suggest one call over another. If the hesitation provides information about the *nature* of the uncertainty, such that the probabilities of the hands expressed by the call changes, then we have grounds for adjustment. The wide range of possibilites encompassed by the 3S bid is systemic and as such is AI. > > Will one call be more successful than the other. Yes, 3N leaves more > options > > open. However, this only means that 3N is a better call, hesitation > > or no hesitation. > > There is a major misunderstanding here, imo. Say a priori 3NT is a 60% > and 4S a 40% action. With the UI say 3NT is 85% and 4S is 15%. As per > your interpretation 3NT was and still is "the best" bid, thus should be > allowed. This however is not what the law says. The UI has improved the > odds of 3NT relative to 4S and has thus "suggested it over" (and 4s is > an LA). I beleive we have discussed this point at length a while ago, > and thought it was resolved accordingly. Did I miss something? No, I am not saying that 3N should be allowed because it is the best bid. I am saying that it should be allowed because there was no information passed that altered its relative probablity of success over 4S. You are saying that the UI has changed the odds in such a way that the odds of success of 3N has improved. If so, I in fact agree with the ruling that the adjustment should occur. However, before I make that adjustment, I want to know what the information was that altered these odds. Please correct me if I am reading your argument wrongly, but you are saying that because the hesitation expressed uncertainty, the probability of success of the call that covers more options has changed. This is where we disagree. I am saying that 3N was always the better bid because it always covered a wider variety of options, and that probablity of success has not changed, because the hesitation did not convey information about the responder's hand. Unless information was passed by the hesitation that altered the probability of success of the bids, we cannot adjust. The question that has not been answered is the nature of the information passed that would have altered the probability of success of the respective LAs. Going back over your list of hesitation causes, we have a limit raise in spades which would suggest 4S over 3N. Another possibility you mentioned was that responder was considering a diamond raise. If so, 3N is indicated to leave room for responder to bid out his shape, if he so chooses (one problem on the actual hand). Another call mentioned was a weak hand with clubs I can't tell which call is suggested by this. IMO there is a slight edge to 4S, as a side shortness in hearts or D might allow a ruff to get to Dummy's club winners, if any, while Dummy is likely to be DOA in NT. Finally, We have a hand that can't bid NT because C or H is wide open. If it's C, once that stiff A is knocked out 3NT is going to be dead, while 4S will have decent play unless the defense is good. This was another problem on the actual hand, which required the defense to find the forcing defense to set 4S, while 3N has no play on a club lead unless the clubs break luckily. If the open suit is hearts, 3N may be right, while if it is clubs, 4S is more likely to be right. Does the UI tell us which of these is suggested? To digress for a moment, I think that 4S is the better contract on the actual hand, as it leaves more scope for the defense to make a mistake (although I must admit I would like to see the E/W hands to analyze what would be likely to occur in a spade contract). If the defense doesn't find the fast tap, 4S is likely to roll, based on the information given (It's still likely to roll if spades are 3-3). It was pure luck of the club split that 3N happened to make, along with a defensive error or two for some overtricks. So what actually occurred, ironically enough, was that even though 3N is the better call, on the actual hand it was wrong, despite the UI. It just happened to get lucky. Now we get back to the critical question. What did the UI tell us? What information did we get about responder's hand that would alter the probability of success of the bids in question? The wide range of possible reasons you gave for the hesitation indicates that we do not know. Your own analysis of the hesitation indicates that, depending on the reason for it, either 3N or 4S could be suggested by the hesitation. If we do not have enough information from the hesitation to say which call was suggested, then we cannot adjust. What I don't see is the information passed that affected the odds of success of the respective calls. What does the opening bidder know about the responder's hand that he didn't know without the hesitation? "Uncertainty" is not enough, as in this situation it does not suggest one call over the other. IMO, this is the missing link. Regards. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 02:46:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:46:41 +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 CAA11180 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:46:33 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA25753 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904291646.MAA29385@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Thu, 29 Apr 1999 01:28:54 +0100) Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > David Grabiner wrote: >> Laval_Dubreuil writes: >>> Is this procedure correct ? If yes, I have a bad feeling >>> about letting a top to 1N-S on board 19 (wrongly >>> played) when Law 17 says that "Any contestant >>> remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily >>> responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play >>> at the table." >> This procedure is correct. You could impose a procedural penalty >> against the offending N-S pair (or against both pairs, since N-S were >> only "primarily" responsible, and E-W committed the specific infraction >> of going to the wrong table) for the offense of causing other pairs to >> take an expected score. > No, it cannot be right to issue a PP against N/S. They did nothing > wrong. Are N-S responsible for checking that they have the correct opponents? In Kaplan's Bridge World article on appeals of procedural penalties, there is an indication that this penalty might be proper. I believe the situation was that a N-S pair asked their opponents, "Pair 2?" and then played against a pair which was actually pair 1. The director penalized both sides; N-S were penalized because they should have known that their famous opponents were a seeded pair (at the time, pair 1 was the top seed). N-S protested that they had done nothing wrong; this p[enalty should be reversed on appeal. Since the situation was worded this way, there seems to be a implication that N-S needed to ask "Pair 2?" in order to be excused from a penalty for not playing Pair 2. That said, I don't think that it would normally be appropriate to impose a procedural penalty on N-S, but there is some case for it. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 02:51:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:51:57 +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 CAA11195 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:51:51 +1000 Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA25891 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:51:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199904291651.MAA29420@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9904290910.aa10234@flash.irvine.com> (message from Adam Beneschan on Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:10:42 PDT) Subject: Re: Established revoke? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes: >> DWS wrote: >> > >2. >> > >South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed >> > >by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another >> > >diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any >> > >diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one >> > >who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the >> > >revoke to become established. >> > This is legal since the lawmakers permit it! In my view, this Law >> > is bad: either defenders should be allowed to ask anyone or no-one. > However, in case 2, the only information transmitted is that East > knows how to count to thirteen. If both declarer and partner show > out, and one or both of them revoked, then East obviously will know > that somebody goofed (although he won't know who). The fact that he > figured this out doesn't say anything about his hand, so there's no UI > here. In practice, there is UI, because East doesn't normally ask either South or West when someone shows out (assuming that the SO forbids asking partner, or that it permits asking partner but it isn't East's usual practice). If West led his stiff diamond, dummy hit with five, and then later in the auction, East led a diamond to which neither South nor West followed, then whether East asked West or South, "No diamonds?" there is UI that East does not have six diamonds. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 02:56:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:56:49 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA11234 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:56:40 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA04588 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA13365 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:56:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199904291656.MAA13365@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > >Imagine this distribution of scores, each 10% likely: > >+2200, -50, -70, -80, -90, -100, -110, -120, -130, -140. > From: David Stevenson > Suppose that you have a set of scores, as you did above, like +2200, - > 100, -110, -120 and so on. A TD/AC considers that all are possible, > none very likely. So if you want the justice for NOs approach, you > award +2200: if you want my practical approach, I consider whether +2200 > falls inside my personal definition of likely: if it does I give them > +2200, if it does not I give them -110: I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't you consider the -50 to -100 range? While no one of those is very likely, all five together are fully 50% and are more favorable to the NOS than -110. Or are you reading in the other direction? > if you want the Willner approach > you don't fool around with a chart you just give them -120. If +2200 is most favorable to the NOS, then in my approach they would get -80 (33rd percentile) and the OS would get +50 (17th percentile). If the other direction is more favorable to the NOS (the above are the OS scores), then the OS get -130 and the NOS get +110. > Why on earth should you give them +3 imps? Exactly! > You understand the principles: you get some feel for the > results that might have been reached and their likelihood: then you pick > a number. You don't do it via complicated algorithms. Yes, I agree. No AC will ever come up with an exact probability table, but you can decide whether each of the possible scores is fairly likely or not. At the simplest, ignore the "not likelies," assign equal probabilities to the "fairly likelies," and there you are. Or give the OS the worst of the "fairly likelies" and the NOS the second best of them or maybe the third best if there are very many. Anything is better than an artificial score. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 02:59:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:59:52 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-19-29.imaginemedia.com [206.57.19.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA11257 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:59:45 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA10355 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:58:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 09:58:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199904291658.JAA10355@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: |>That seems fair, but is not clearly consistent with L12C. The NOS |>get a likely result, not an unlikely one. According to L12C, you |>simply are not allowed to assign the NOS a 10% (or whatever) result. | | Why not? The WBF LC have never said that a likely result is a 33% |one. That is merely the flawed conclusion of one particular authority. |It does not make it a given. I think that 12 equally likely scores are |"likely", while I think that if you have a 93% score and an 8% score, |the 8% score is not "likely". L12C says "likely." I don't think an 8% event is likely, even if it is one of 12 equiprobable possible events. 30% is a reasonable guideline; without some guideline, committees could argue forever over what possible results can be assigned to a NOS. In practice, they won't, because life is too short to waste one's time that way. Still, since one of the perceived problems bridge has right now is nonuniformity of committee rulings, having a clear definition of what constitutes a likely result is a good thing. We've had way too many seat of the pants rulings. |>Imagine this distribution of scores, each 10% likely: |> |>+2200, -50, -70, -80, -90, -100, -110, -120, -130, -140. |> |>Would you want to justify awarding +2200 to the NOS when |>90% of the time, they'd get -100 +/- 50? In this case, |>the result from considering all unlikely results is a |>silly one. | | Now hold it right there! Why is it a silly one? I do think you need |to decide what you expect from this Law. Do you want equity? Do you |want the NOs never to suffer? What do you want? The reason it's silly is that 90% of the results are effectively the same score, while 10% are vastly different. Because the 90% happens to be split 9 ways we consider the 2200 as a likely result. If, however, the results were +2200: 10%, -90: 30%, -100: 30%, and -110: 30%, we would not consider 2200. After IMPing, the two sets of results described are pretty much identical, but because the raw scores are trivially different, we are to choose vastly different results to assign. That's what's silly. There exists a continuum of sets of scores between the two examples. At some point we simply draw a line and our assigned score jumps from -50 (or whatever) to +2200, based on an arbitrarily small judgment. That's what seems wrong, not that we might choose to award 2200 on a partscore hand. What do I want? Basically, I want an algorithm that will determine which score to assign so that two committees with roughly similar bridge judgment will usually produce the same result. I'd like that result to be reasonably equitable and to protect the NOS, but that's far less critical to me than to have a way to work out the correct ruling either at committee or after. Altogether too often, when sitting on ACs, I find that the committee doesn't know what to do. I'd like to be able to guide them step-by-step though the ruling procedure, letting the group make judgments, but being sure myself of how to use those judgments to apply a ruling. Even if the procedure produces a less than perfect result once in awhile, it'd be nice if it didn't ever produce a ludicrous one. It'd also be nice if it were stable, that is, if small changes in judgment usually resulted in small changes in the ruling when possible. | If you want equity, you could go along the L12C3 route. Give them 10% |of each of the scores you mention, weight it slightly towards the NOs, |and there you are. I agree. I think 12C3 is the best choice if 12C2 fails. I don't happen to have that option currently. Perhaps the ACBL NLC can at least be willing to accept that if many possible results are possible without the infraction, none very likely, then a result can be chosen to restore equity. That's a limited application of 12C3, but a sensible one. | What, I suspect, most people want is one of two things: either an |equity based ruling [use L12C3, and preferably expand its use so that |Zones may permit DICs to use it] or a ruling that gives the NOs no |suffering within reason, but without being extreme. Right, but what's "within reason?" I'd prefer most a set of guidelines that will produce this result, but give the committee the choice to reject it and produce equity if they feel that the guidelines happen not to work that time. Such occurrances ought to be rare. |>I wouldn't like to, although it's happened (and once cost me an event). |>I can believe that L12C2 means it; I prefer that it doesn't. Actually, |>I can think of a reason why 12C would suggest giving the +3 IMPs. The |>lawmakers might not want to assign very unlikely scores ever. | | Which "lawmakers"? The lawmakers have never defined "likely" in the |totally restrictive way that the ACBL LC has. Don't blame the |"lawmakers" for this. The lawmakers who wrote L12C2 wrote "likely." I don't think any sensible person would define likely to mean 10%, at least in this context. It seems to me that if they write "assign ... likely," they also mean "don't assign unlikely." | My heart bleeds. So long as the principles of ruling are understood |it is not necessary to take a long time on a chart. The actual ruling |would be quicker without going through the details. Scary statement. You like it that committees might rule quickly without going through the details? I don't. My experience is that such rulings are often irreproducable and sometimes wrong, even when the basic principles are understood. | Suppose that you have a set of scores, as you did above, like +2200, - |100, -110, -120 and so on. A TD/AC considers that all are possible, |none very likely. So if you want the justice for NOs approach, you |award +2200: if you want my practical approach, I consider whether +2200 |falls inside my personal definition of likely: if it does I give them |+2200, if it does not I give them -110: if you want the Willner approach |you don't fool around with a chart you just give them -120. And the next committee, with a different personal definition of likely produces a different result. Those who got -2200 scream, feel an injustice was done, see an incredibly similar ruling in which a different committee ruled differently, and think that the whole process is idiotic. No, "personal definitions" should be discouraged. I'm sure you personally can do fine with it. I'm also sure that you can't be on every committee. |>What I'd really like to do is award A+/A- and award IMPs for the |>result at the other table, possibly relative to par. Par's a lot |>easier to compute than is the 30% percentile result. | | That's one hell of a statement! Anyway, at least this shows what you |really want: you want L12C3! No. I want a straightforward flow-chart. For example: 1) Is any result likely, that is, > 30% to happen? If yes, determine the set of > 30% results. The NOS gets the most favorable of them. If no, give the NOS the par result. 2) Is any result at all probable, that is, >10% to happen? If so, determine the set of > 10% results. The OS gets the least favorable of them. If not, give the OS the par result. I don't claim that the above is the *best* flowchart, but it's a complete one. A commmitee who realizes that they must rule using L12C2 can follow these instructions and know what to do. That's what I want. Steve's approach is complete, but it's not fully consistent with the laws. Yours is ill-defined. The laws' is in need of clarification is incomplete. Is it too much to ask for well-defined, complete, consistent laws and guidelines? |>...results (Butler would even work this time) but we just don't |>have the resources to deal with it in committee. | | Yes, you do, so long as you do not complicate it the way you seem to |wish to do. You understand the principles: you get some feel for the |results that might have been reached and their likelihood: then you pick |a number. You don't do it via complicated algorithms. You do it by the seat of your pants and you get random rulings that vary from day to day. No, I won't accept that. Players don't understand the AC process. Committees don't understand the AC process. This is one reason why they don't. For the last few years, I've wanted to write a document called "Instructions for Appeals Committees." It'd cover procedures for what to do when one encounters the most common situations. Bridge judgment will be allowed, of course; the procedures will include express statements like "judge the most likely outcome," or "judge if the OS's action was very foolish, irrational, wild or gambling, given their experience level." It'd include examples of borderline cases so that committees can judge "is this more foolish than that? If it is about the same, is the player in question sufficiently inexperienced or are there other extenuating circumstances that we shall choose not to hold him liable for his action?" This document would pretty much be an updated version of the Bridge World's series on ACs, but with an approach more aimed towards the process of ruling, not the principles. Many ACs could learn a carefully-stated process. Few can learn and work from principles. | We are merely talking principles here. The practice is simple once |the principles are understood, so long as the people deciding do not |adopt a petty approach. That turns out not to be the case, neither in bridge nor in other walks of life. People are good at following instructions, at using algorithms. They are notoriously poor at instantiating from general principles. If the ACs are to be advised to rule from general principles, the approach is doomed to failure or must be restricted to few enough committees that only the very best in the world will sit. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 03:27:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:27:28 +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 DAA11307 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:27:20 +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 <19990429172711.XIWX6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:27:11 -0700 Message-ID: <37289787.E87CB3A2@home.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:31:52 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904272110.OAA02504@corp.affiliation.COM> <37271A28.A9DF14A6@idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > The principles surrounding the use of the mini NT and its effects > are > not the same as the principles surrounding the use of the weak NT and > its effects. To have played a mini NT proves nothing about a player's > reactions to a weak NT. Let's be realistic now David. If a world champion masters how to rebid a balanced hand when playing a 15-17 NT and when playing a 10-12 NT, he can be expected to figure out how to do it playing a 12-14 NT. Let's not split hairs here. To be quite honest with you, I know many *non* world champions who'd figure it out. Amazing, isn't it! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 03:28:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:28:15 +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 DAA11313 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:27:31 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa15166; 29 Apr 99 10:26 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Established revoke? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:51:45 PDT." <199904291651.MAA29420@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:25:37 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904291026.aa15166@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner writes: > Adam Beneschan writes: > > >> DWS wrote: > > >> > >2. > >> > >South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed > >> > >by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another > >> > >diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any > >> > >diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one > >> > >who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the > >> > >revoke to become established. > > >> > This is legal since the lawmakers permit it! In my view, this Law > >> > is bad: either defenders should be allowed to ask anyone or no-one. > > > However, in case 2, the only information transmitted is that East > > knows how to count to thirteen. If both declarer and partner show > > out, and one or both of them revoked, then East obviously will know > > that somebody goofed (although he won't know who). The fact that he > > figured this out doesn't say anything about his hand, so there's no UI > > here. If declarer is genuinely out of the suit, then I stand by my contention that there's no UI. There's only a problem if declarer revoked, as in the following: > In practice, there is UI, because East doesn't normally ask either South > or West when someone shows out (assuming that the SO forbids asking > partner, or that it permits asking partner but it isn't East's usual > practice). If West led his stiff diamond, dummy hit with five, and > then later in the auction, East led a diamond to which neither South nor > West followed, then whether East asked West or South, "No diamonds?" > there is UI that East does not have six diamonds. I don't know about this . . . In your example, obviously South revoked. If East's question causes South to correct the revoke, then the information that East doesn't have six diamonds is authorized. If South still doesn't correct the revoke even after the question, then West has information that he wouldn't have had without the question---i.e. West can deduce that South revoked. But should I care? I know it's a cardinal principle of bridge that information is not to be communicated except through calls and plays, but the First Commandment of bridge is THOU SHALT FOLLOW SUIT. It screws up the game royally when people don't do that. And if South can't follow that commandment, even when given a second chance, should I really be concerned about possible information(*) that gets transmitted as a direct consequence of South's transgression? Let's punish the offenders, instead of trying to make life difficult for non-offenders. (*) I am deliberately refusing to call this *unauthorized* information, because I'm not convinced that it's actually UI under the Laws. Information about the hand that a defender gets when someone shows out is of course authorized, and is a huge part of the game. So if someone shows out when they're not supposed to, they're providing disinformation, essentially depriving the opponents of information they're ENTITLED to have. This screws up the game so badly, so that when a revoke question serves to restore some of the correct information that players are ENTITLED to have, I don't see how this information can be called "unauthorized". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 03:43:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:43:18 +1000 Received: from corp.affiliation.COM (node-19-29.imaginemedia.com [206.57.19.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11353 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:43:13 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10956 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:42:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199904291742.KAA10956@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: |David Stevenson wrote: | |> The principles surrounding the use of the mini NT and its effects > are |> not the same as the principles surrounding the use of the weak NT and |> its effects. To have played a mini NT proves nothing about a player's |> reactions to a weak NT. | |Let's be realistic now David. If a world champion masters how to rebid a |balanced hand when playing a 15-17 NT and when playing a 10-12 NT, he |can be expected to figure out how to do it playing a 12-14 NT. Let's not |split hairs here. To be quite honest with you, I know many *non* world |champions who'd figure it out. Amazing, isn't it! :-) Playing 10-12 and 15-17 is pretty much the same thing, believe it or not. 12-14 happens to be quite different. That's not obvious to most players, particularly those who are not experienced with weak (not mini) notrumps. Given that the original writer to whom David responded is a very experienced player, I can say for certain that not every experienced player realizes how different 10-12 and 12-14 notrump ranges really are. It isn't all that surprising that in the heat of the battle, a player might not realize that a difference has been encountered, particularly when it leaves no good option available. Does that make the error any less? Maybe, maybe not. I think there's room for judgment, and I wouldn't quarrel with a committee who decided either way. Note that I'm not saying that bidding 1NT wasn't an error, just that it's not clear how easy it was to avoid. I think that's the principle behind the standard of breaking causality. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 04:59:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:59:19 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11571 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:58:56 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cw16-0009Cb-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:58:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:54:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Established revoke? References: <90A8793454EED21187920060972614BB012117@BRIDGE> <9904290910.aa10234@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9904290910.aa10234@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> DWS wrote: >> >> >> > >2. >> > >South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed >> > >by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another >> > >diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any >> > >diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one >> > >who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the >> > >revoke to become established. >> > >> > This is legal since the lawmakers permit it! In my view, this Law >> > is bad: either defenders should be allowed to ask anyone or no-one. >> > >> > >> > ######## I still believe that East's question is UI for West. (I seem >> > to recall from somewhere, perhaps the old Commentary on the Laws or >> > some EBU training material, that such a question to declarer that >> > wakes up a defender was illegal.) Thus, the only time that a defender >> > can safely use his L61B right to query declarer is when his partner >> > has followed to the trick. ############### > >Actually, I believe there's UI in case 1, but not in case 2. In case >1, East transmitted the information that something about his hand made >him suspect West revoked. Presumably, this wouldn't happen if East's >diamonds were long, so East's actions put an upper limit on the number >of diamonds he can have. This is UI for West. However, in case 2, >the only information transmitted is that East knows how to count to >thirteen. If both declarer and partner show out, and one or both of >them revoked, then East obviously will know that somebody goofed >(although he won't know who). The fact that he figured this out >doesn't say anything about his hand, so there's no UI here. If I show out, my RHO [declarer] shows out, then I have a complete count of the diamonds in partners' hand: if he asks the question it gives me the information that my count of his diamonds is wrong. Surely that is UI? >By the way, what was the purpose of putting L61B in the Laws? Is it >because we don't like the UI that gets transmitted when questions are >asked, or is it because don't like players trying to prevent >irregularities committed by their partners? It seems that it must be >the first answer (otherwise we wouldn't let dummy inquire about >declarer's revokes); so based on that, I don't see a problem with East >asking a question in case 2, since there's no UI involved. We were told that it was because of UI problems. Case 2 certainly does give UI, but whether it *matters* is another question. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 04:59:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:59:15 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11572 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:58:57 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cw16-0009Ca-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:58:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:49:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904291658.JAA10355@corp.affiliation.COM> In-Reply-To: <199904291658.JAA10355@corp.affiliation.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >|>That seems fair, but is not clearly consistent with L12C. The NOS >|>get a likely result, not an unlikely one. According to L12C, you >|>simply are not allowed to assign the NOS a 10% (or whatever) result. >| >| Why not? The WBF LC have never said that a likely result is a 33% >|one. That is merely the flawed conclusion of one particular authority. >|It does not make it a given. I think that 12 equally likely scores are >|"likely", while I think that if you have a 93% score and an 8% score, >|the 8% score is not "likely". > >L12C says "likely." I don't think an 8% event is likely, >even if it is one of 12 equiprobable possible events. >30% is a reasonable guideline; without some guideline, >committees could argue forever over what possible results >can be assigned to a NOS. In practice, they won't, because >life is too short to waste one's time that way. Still, since >one of the perceived problems bridge has right now is >nonuniformity of committee rulings, having a clear >definition of what constitutes a likely result is a >good thing. We've had way too many seat of the pants >rulings. OK, so produce some guidelines. But the current NAmerican guidelines are *completely* wrong. The two choice problem is not the same as the ten choice problem, and using a single figure for each is just wrong. [s] >What do I want? Basically, I want an algorithm that will >determine which score to assign so that two committees >with roughly similar bridge judgment will usually produce >the same result. I'd like that result to be reasonably >equitable and to protect the NOS, but that's far less >critical to me than to have a way to work out the correct >ruling either at committee or after. Altogether too often, >when sitting on ACs, I find that the committee doesn't know >what to do. I'd like to be able to guide them step-by-step >though the ruling procedure, letting the group make judgments, >but being sure myself of how to use those judgments to apply >a ruling. Even if the procedure produces a less than perfect >result once in awhile, it'd be nice if it didn't ever produce >a ludicrous one. It'd also be nice if it were stable, that >is, if small changes in judgment usually resulted in small >changes in the ruling when possible. Fine. But to produce the wrong algorithm to get the wrong result does not seem to be the answer. You and I have different views as to what we can expect of TDs and ACs when they use their judgement, and what to expect. I am accustomed to Europeans, who don't vote on anything, who listen to discussions, and who know how to compromise. I am not very happy at all with dissenting opinions in NAmerican appeals because it makes me doubt whether they try for consensus. We need to be able to control TDs and ACs and make sure they give good and fair rulings and decisions. But none of this affects my basic premise: giving illegal and unfair rulings under L12C2 is no answer. [s] >The lawmakers who wrote L12C2 wrote "likely." I don't think any sensible >person would define likely to mean 10%, at least in this context. It >seems to me that if they write "assign ... likely," they also mean >"don't assign unlikely." Ah, well, I never claimed to be sensible! In my view, the likely outcome of something is something that one has a reasonable expectation of happening, given all possibilities. I don't conceive of situations that have no likely outcomes. I think that the percentage route is wrong. Perhaps you could produce a formula whereby the percentage that makes something likely is a function of the number of possibilities, but a straight percentage is not correct. I do not see that difficulties in getting ACs to do what you want should affect what correct action is. >| My heart bleeds. So long as the principles of ruling are understood >|it is not necessary to take a long time on a chart. The actual ruling >|would be quicker without going through the details. >Scary statement. You like it that committees might rule >quickly without going through the details? I don't. My >experience is that such rulings are often irreproducable >and sometimes wrong, even when the basic principles are >understood. No, I think you are talking of committees where the basic principles are not understood. Given a set of guidelines, a bit of discussion, a bit of compromise, not too much ego, a Committee do not need to spend an hour deciding whether 110 is a 15% action or only a 13% one to be able to produce a sensible decision. >No. I want a straightforward flow-chart. For example: >1) Is any result likely, that is, > 30% to happen? > If yes, determine the set of > 30% results. > The NOS gets the most favorable of them. > If no, give the NOS the par result. >2) Is any result at all probable, that is, >10% to happen? > If so, determine the set of > 10% results. > The OS gets the least favorable of them. > If not, give the OS the par result. > >I don't claim that the above is the *best* flowchart, >but it's a complete one. A commmitee who realizes >that they must rule using L12C2 can follow these >instructions and know what to do. That's what I want. >Steve's approach is complete, but it's not fully >consistent with the laws. Yours is ill-defined. >The laws' is in need of clarification is incomplete. >Is it too much to ask for well-defined, complete, >consistent laws and guidelines? First, we have to agree on what L12C2 requires. Then we have to communicate it to ACs. OK, you lie regimentation, I don't. But we must deal with the first bit first, and then we must deal with the second bit, discussing how best to do it. At the moment we have not got agreement on the first bit. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 04:59:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:59:34 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11590 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:59:21 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cw16-0009CY-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:58:37 +0000 Message-ID: <6vBTciAfYJK3Ewhr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:25:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opinions, Please 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: >Jan Kamras >> There is a major misunderstanding here, imo. Say a priori 3NT is a 60% >> and 4S a 40% action. With the UI say 3NT is 85% and 4S is 15%. As per >> your interpretation 3NT was and still is "the best" bid, thus should be >> allowed. This however is not what the law says. The UI has improved the >> odds of 3NT relative to 4S and has thus "suggested it over" (and 4s is >> an LA). I beleive we have discussed this point at length a while ago, >> and thought it was resolved accordingly. Did I miss something? >It was certainly not resolved as above (though it may well have petered >out with this as the majority opinion). > >And now..a boring treatise on suggested LAs. > >An action that can be readily identified as a "40% action" when a "60% >action" exists is not one that "a significant minority of peers would >seriously consider" let alone one that "25/30% of peers would take". In >situations where such percentages are known the 40% action cannot be >considered an LA (I don't consider the current case one of those >situations BTW). I do hate the idea that we have to discuss this again and again but there may well be new readers here who do not understand the Tim West- Meads point of view. When we talk about a 40% action we *all* with the exception of Tim West-Meads mean an action that, if polled amongst players of similar system and style, we would expect 40% to find. Tim knows this well enough: it has been argued many times, both here and on RGB. Tim likes to use the term 40% action to mean a type of 0% action. it is not helpful, and he has no support that I know of. I would strongly suggest that people remember this when reading current and future things written by Tim. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 04:59:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:59:14 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11570 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 04:58:56 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10cw16-0009CZ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:58:37 +0000 Message-ID: <9$0SInAKeJK3Ewh5@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:31:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904291656.MAA13365@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199904291656.MAA13365@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >> >Imagine this distribution of scores, each 10% likely: >> >+2200, -50, -70, -80, -90, -100, -110, -120, -130, -140. > >> From: David Stevenson >> Suppose that you have a set of scores, as you did above, like +2200, - >> 100, -110, -120 and so on. A TD/AC considers that all are possible, >> none very likely. So if you want the justice for NOs approach, you >> award +2200: if you want my practical approach, I consider whether +2200 >> falls inside my personal definition of likely: if it does I give them >> +2200, if it does not I give them -110: > >I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't you consider the -50 to -100 >range? While no one of those is very likely, all five together are >fully 50% and are more favorable to the NOS than -110. Or are you >reading in the other direction? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!! :)))) It was a *long* article! I said "like": I then quoted it without looking as "+2200, -100, -110, -120 and so on". The following figures were based on "+2200, -100, -110, -120 and so on" and not the original figures! >> if you want the Willner approach >> you don't fool around with a chart you just give them -120. > >If +2200 is most favorable to the NOS, then in my approach they would >get -80 (33rd percentile) and the OS would get +50 (17th percentile). > >If the other direction is more favorable to the NOS (the above are >the OS scores), then the OS get -130 and the NOS get +110. > >> Why on earth should you give them +3 imps? > >Exactly! > >> You understand the principles: you get some feel for the >> results that might have been reached and their likelihood: then you pick >> a number. You don't do it via complicated algorithms. > >Yes, I agree. No AC will ever come up with an exact probability table, >but you can decide whether each of the possible scores is fairly likely >or not. At the simplest, ignore the "not likelies," assign equal >probabilities to the "fairly likelies," and there you are. Or give the >OS the worst of the "fairly likelies" and the NOS the second best of >them or maybe the third best if there are very many. That's right: a practical approach. >Anything is better than an artificial score. Yay! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 05:34:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 05:34:25 +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 FAA11723 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 05:34:12 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23124; 29 Apr 99 12:33 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Established revoke? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:54:13 PDT." Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:33:20 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9904291233.aa23124@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >Actually, I believe there's UI in case 1, but not in case 2. In case > >1, East transmitted the information that something about his hand made > >him suspect West revoked. Presumably, this wouldn't happen if East's > >diamonds were long, so East's actions put an upper limit on the number > >of diamonds he can have. This is UI for West. However, in case 2, > >the only information transmitted is that East knows how to count to > >thirteen. If both declarer and partner show out, and one or both of > >them revoked, then East obviously will know that somebody goofed > >(although he won't know who). The fact that he figured this out > >doesn't say anything about his hand, so there's no UI here. > > If I show out, my RHO [declarer] shows out, then I have a complete > count of the diamonds in partners' hand: if he asks the question it > gives me the information that my count of his diamonds is wrong. Surely > that is UI? I think I covered this in my response to David Grabiner. To restate: I now have information that my count of partner's diamonds is wrong. The only way my count of partner's diamonds could be wrong is if declarer has revoked. If declarer had followed the Laws, I would have correct AI about partner's count in the suit; this is AI to which I am entitled, since RHO has followed the Laws. Thus, in the case that RHO revoked, partner's question has given me information that's the same as the AI I would have gotten if RHO had followed the Laws. To me, this means that this information cannot be unauthorized, since it's information I was supposed to get, and was legally entitled to get. I guess you could say that "technically, it's UI, but it can't possibly cause any L16A restrictions"; if that's the case, we're just arguing about terminology. But to me, the idea that information to which I'm entitled can become information that I have to bend over backwards to avoid using, because of an *opponent's* infraction, is a perversion of the Laws. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 08:54:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 08:54:07 +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 IAA12386 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 08:54:00 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-61.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.162]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA01819 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 19:03:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3728E43F.D9127616@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 18:59:11 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: What a mess! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by minerva.pinehurst.net id TAA01819 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 82 C says =93If a Director has given a ruling that he or the chief director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides non offending for that purpose=94 I made an error in a ruling at the local game. It was the second hand and I had to fill in for a player who had not arrived and the game was late, etc.. but I should have gotten the book. The bidding was E. 1 NT S X W P N X. Director! I did not grab the law book nor did I go get the law book before making the ruling....(2 BIG mistakes) and it gets worse!!! I ruled that the illegal double would be converted to a pass as the illegal doubler says =93I should alert my partner=92s double,= it shows a one suited hand=94. She adds, =93we have just started playing DON= T and I was so intent on making a double I didn't see my partner's double.=94 Now West says =93I would have bid if I had known that=94 so = I allowed West to bid and he bid 2 diamonds. I told the illegal doubler to pass for one round. East Alerts West's bid as a transfer and after N=92s forced pass, bids 2 hearts and South (who should have been barred), bids 3 Clubs followed by three passes. E/W scored 200. After the late player arrived, I was uncomfortable with my ruling and now referred the book and found that I had penalized the wrong player and South should have been barred for the rest of the auction. My feeling was that if that had happened, South would not have been able to bid 3 Clubs and E/W would not have scored 200 and if allowed to play 2 Hearts. or 3 diamonds would have had a very poor result. I told the players that I had erred in my ruling (Law 82) and was giving both sides an average +. Can we get a normal result on this board?? West was very unhappy and said he did not think I should be able to change my ruling. At this point I think that E/W have unauthorized information (North also has a one suited hand) and would take no action after N bids 3 clubs. It was later determined that West's bid was not a transfer but was showing partner where his strength was if they had to play against a one suited hand and they had no understanding as to what a bid over interference would mean. I discussed this ruling with another director with about 40 years experience and he concurred with my ruling (Law 82) but West wants a higher authority to rule. East/West are both life masters and an established partnership. North/South are about 120 points each and not a steady partnership but do play together sometimes. (I think this is irrelevant, though as are the hands of each player which I do have if necessary) Does Law 21B apply to this situation? How do I correct this awful error, and you can sure I have learned 2 things. 1. The law regarding illegal doubles, 2. *Always* RTFLB! (When you make a mistake, be sure to make a big one!!--Nancy=92s problem) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 10:24:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:24:13 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA12579 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:24:07 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10d15w-000DW4-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 00:23:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 20:02:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A committee in Los Angeles References: <199904272110.OAA02504@corp.affiliation.COM> <37271A28.A9DF14A6@idt.net> <37289787.E87CB3A2@home.com> In-Reply-To: <37289787.E87CB3A2@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: > >> The principles surrounding the use of the mini NT and its effects > are >> not the same as the principles surrounding the use of the weak NT and >> its effects. To have played a mini NT proves nothing about a player's >> reactions to a weak NT. > >Let's be realistic now David. If a world champion masters how to rebid a >balanced hand when playing a 15-17 NT and when playing a 10-12 NT, he >can be expected to figure out how to do it playing a 12-14 NT. Let's not >split hairs here. To be quite honest with you, I know many *non* world >champions who'd figure it out. Amazing, isn't it! :-) It was slightly tongue-in-cheek. But only slightly: I merely thought the original comment was incredible, so added a bit of fuel. Do you really think there are world champions who do not understand the weak NT? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 10:53:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:53:35 +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 KAA12649 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:53:28 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveh2f.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.79]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA10062 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 20:53:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990429205120.006ff688@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 20:51:20 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <37280A33.7D84C7C4@home.com> References: <002701be9203$c5d9e020$c5fe7ad1@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:28 AM 4/29/99 -0700, Jan wrote: >Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> If a bid is a priori more likely to be >> successful because it works in more cases, it's simply a good bid. > >Yes, but if that likelyhood is demonstrably increased by the UI, it also >becomes "suggested over" and thus disallowed. > >> First, the 3S call could be made on either 2 or 3 spades. > >But only with 3 if 10-12 range. This reduces the number of 3 carders a >lot. > >> >> Does the UI suggest that one call will be more successful than the > other? >> How can it? We don't know more about responder's point range and we >> don't know more about >> responder's trump holding, even with the UI. Exactly what information > has >> the hesitation imparted that would suggest one bid over the other? > >The game is not about "point range" alone, as you seem to suggest. The >hesitation has expressed *uncertainty* about the chosen action. >Therefore the most flexible LA by pard has improved *relative to other >LAs*. > >> Will one call be more successful than the other. Yes, 3N leaves more > options >> open. However, this only means that 3N is a better call, hesitation >> or no hesitation. > >There is a major misunderstanding here, imo. Say a priori 3NT is a 60% >and 4S a 40% action. With the UI say 3NT is 85% and 4S is 15%. As per >your interpretation 3NT was and still is "the best" bid, thus should be >allowed. This however is not what the law says. The UI has improved the >odds of 3NT relative to 4S and has thus "suggested it over" (and 4s is >an LA). I beleive we have discussed this point at length a while ago, >and thought it was resolved accordingly. Did I miss something? > But you've missed Hirsch's point here. It is that the hesitation does not demonstrably improve the odds on the 3nt call. You have pulled numbers from the ether, as I'm sure you would acknowledge. The important question posed by Hirsch remains unaddressed: what additional information is offered by the hesitation? You assert that it expresses uncertainty about strain. Of course it might reflect uncertainty about level rather than strain, which tends to make 4S more attractive, rather than less. But leaving that argument aside, the key point is that _the bid itself_ expresses uncertainty about strain. The hesitation adds nothing material to that information, at least not enough to meet the "demonstrably suggests" criterion, IMO. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 10:54:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:54:13 +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 KAA12664 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:54:06 +1000 Received: from p7es11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.127] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10d1Z0-0002Fs-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 01:53:59 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What a mess! Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 01:55:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01be92a4$33467560$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: Nancy T Dressing To: bridge-laws Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 12:12 AM Subject: What a mess! >Law 82 C says “If a Director has given a ruling that he or the chief >director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no >rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award >an adjusted score, considering both sides non offending for that >purpose. >I made an error in a ruling at the local game. It was the second hand >and I had to fill in for a player who had not arrived and the game was >late, etc.. but I should have gotten the book. The bidding was E. 1 >NT S X W P N X. Director! I did not grab the law book nor did I go >get the law book before making the ruling....(2 BIG mistakes) and it >gets worse!!! To coin a locally used expression, I'm sure that I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but I have developed a habit, and not all habits are bad. Whether or not I am playing, but especially if I am playing, I always have alongside me TFLB, a book of regulations (in England and Wales - The Orange book) a notepad and a pen. If called, they are to hand, and it is easier to take them than to go back for them later. And it looks efficient :-) > I ruled that the illegal double would be converted to a >pass as the illegal doubler says “I should alert my partner’s double, it >shows a one suited hand”. She adds, “we have just started playing >DONT >and I was so intent on making a double I didn't see my partner's >double.” Plenty of AI for E/W and so much UI for South. > Now West says “I would have bid if I had known that” so I >allowed West to bid and he bid 2 diamonds. So far so good. > I told the illegal doubler >to pass for one round. OOps! > East Alerts West's bid as a transfer and after >N’s forced pass, bids 2 hearts and South (who should have been >barred), >bids 3 Clubs followed by three passes. Yes--Well were now getting out of hand. > E/W scored 200. We need to see the hands to know if E/W were damaged but it does not sound as though they were. >After the late >player arrived, I was uncomfortable with my ruling and now referred >the >book and found >that I had penalized the wrong player and South should have been >barred >for the rest of the auction. Law36 which also covers the lead penalty situation. >My feeling was that if that had happened, >South would not have been able to bid 3 Clubs and E/W would not >have >scored 200 and if allowed to play 2 Hearts. or 3 diamonds would >have had >a very poor result. I told the players that I had erred in my ruling >(Law 82) and was giving both sides an average +. Can we get a >normal >result on this board?? No. I think that Law 82 is correct. The TD made an error and for the purpose of awarding a result Law 12C1 applies.This law says "when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained" It does not say "normal". A result was obtained. >West was very unhappy and said he did not think I >should be able to change my ruling. At this point I think that E/W >have >unauthorized information (North also has a one suited hand) and >would >take no action after N bids 3 clubs. I think that the information that E/W have is authorised. >It was later determined that >West's bid was not a transfer but was showing partner where his >strength >was if they had to play against a one suited hand and they had no >understanding as to what a bid over interference would mean. I >discussed >this ruling with another director with about 40 years experience and >he >concurred with my ruling (Law 82) but West wants a higher authority >to >rule. East/West are both life masters and an established >partnership. >North/South are about 120 points each and not a steady partnership >but >do play together sometimes. (I think this is irrelevant, though as are >the hands of each player which I do have if necessary) Does Law >21B >apply to this situation? How do I correct this awful error, and you >can sure I have learned 2 things. 1. The law regarding illegal >doubles, 2. *Always* RTFLB! >(When you make a mistake, be sure to make a big one!!--Nancy’s >problem) Little mistakes go unnoticed but are errors nevertheless. Big ones jump out and haunt for ever. We all make mistakes but not all learn from them. Well done for admitting this one. I would rule that E/W should keep their table score if it is better than A+, ( and I'll wait for the flack on this bit) and that N/S should be treated as non offending under Law 82 and get their A+ also. The players are informed of their right to appeal. As the ruling was given, the players have their right of appeal and E/W should do so if they are unhappy, their comment about higher authority is a request for an appeal and I would produce an appeal form quick smart. They were non offending throughout and are unhappy that they are not getting their just deserts. That is what appeals are for. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 11:11:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA12712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:11:15 +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 LAA12707 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:10:58 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2iveh2f.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.79]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA01481 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:10:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990429210845.0070dd18@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:08:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Opinions, Please In-Reply-To: <6vBTciAfYJK3Ewhr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:25 PM 4/29/99 +0100, DWS wrote: > I do hate the idea that we have to discuss this again and again but >there may well be new readers here who do not understand the Tim West- >Meads point of view. > > When we talk about a 40% action we *all* with the exception of Tim >West-Meads mean an action that, if polled amongst players of similar >system and style, we would expect 40% to find. > > Tim knows this well enough: it has been argued many times, both here >and on RGB. > > Tim likes to use the term 40% action to mean a type of 0% action. it >is not helpful, and he has no support that I know of. I would strongly >suggest that people remember this when reading current and future things >written by Tim. I realize I am stepping into an old argument here, but in the context of the current thread, Tim's use of 40% was consistent with what I understand Jan meant by his own introduction of probabilities, and it was to Jan that Tim was responding. I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think Jan was arguing that in the case in question, the UI improved the _odds of success_ of the challenged 3nt bid, rather than the proportion of players who would choose it. Jan postulated an improvement from 60% to 85% based on the UI, although I suspect his numbers were primarily for illustration. In that context, at least, Tim's comments seem apt, even if you disagree with his conclusion, as you seem to. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 12:14:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:14:50 +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 MAA12835 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:14:43 +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 VAA24951 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 21:14:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0TXGO01Z Thu, 29 Apr 99 21:18:17 Message-ID: <9904292118.0TXGO01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 99 21:18:17 Subject: A COMMITTEE IN LOS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This thread is proving to be interesting. It seems that the likely results that L12C refers to are, from the point of the infraction, the result of four players acting in turn, each selecting the best action. In order of precedence these include [a] legal actions that they have earlier in the hand demonstrated they would take, [b] actions required by system, [c] actions that are obvious from general bridge knowledge, and [d] otherwise lacking a or b or c, the one or two or three actions that appear attractive [but not because it works as the cards lie]. Where best actions are those that rate to achieve the most favorable score. Note that [a] would include mistakes as opposed to solely 'best actions'. It is from this group that scores would be assigned. Roger Pewick B>Jeff Goldsmith wrote: B>>David Stevenson wrote: B>>I don't claim that the above is the *best* flowchart, B>>but it's a complete one. A commmitee who realizes B>>that they must rule using L12C2 can follow these B>>instructions and know what to do. That's what I want. B>>Steve's approach is complete, but it's not fully B>>consistent with the laws. Yours is ill-defined. B>>The laws' is in need of clarification is incomplete. B>>Is it too much to ask for well-defined, complete, B>>consistent laws and guidelines? B>First, we have to agree on what L12C2 requires. Then we have to B>communicate it to ACs. OK, you lie regimentation, I don't. But we must B>deal with the first bit first, and then we must deal with the second B>bit, discussing how best to do it. At the moment we have not got B>agreement on the first bit. B>-- B>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ B>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 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 Fri Apr 30 12:31:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:31:18 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA12871 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:31:09 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10d34w-000Mmt-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:31:02 +0000 Message-ID: <7HdTWFAsQRK3EwjW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:23:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What a mess! References: <3728E43F.D9127616@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: <3728E43F.D9127616@pinehurst.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 Nancy T Dressing wrote: >Law 82 C says =93If a Director has given a ruling that he or the chief >director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no >rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award >an adjusted score, considering both sides non offending for that >purpose=94 >I made an error in a ruling at the local game. It was the second hand >and I had to fill in for a player who had not arrived and the game was >late, etc.. but I should have gotten the book. The bidding was E. 1 >NT S X W P N X. Director! I did not grab the law book nor did I go >get the law book before making the ruling....(2 BIG mistakes) and it >gets worse!!! I ruled that the illegal double would be converted to a >pass as the illegal doubler says =93I should alert my partner=92s double, = it >shows a one suited hand=94. She adds, =93we have just started playing DONT >and I was so intent on making a double I didn't see my partner's >double.=94 Now West says =93I would have bid if I had known that=94 so I >allowed West to bid and he bid 2 diamonds. I told the illegal doubler >to pass for one round. East Alerts West's bid as a transfer and after >N=92s forced pass, bids 2 hearts and South (who should have been barred), >bids 3 Clubs followed by three passes. E/W scored 200. After the late >player arrived, I was uncomfortable with my ruling and now referred the >book and found >that I had penalized the wrong player and South should have been barred >for the rest of the auction. My feeling was that if that had happened, >South would not have been able to bid 3 Clubs and E/W would not have >scored 200 and if allowed to play 2 Hearts. or 3 diamonds would have had >a very poor result. I told the players that I had erred in my ruling >(Law 82) and was giving both sides an average +. I am sure that you will know what I think of that! Just to make it clear in case anyone has missed the point, L82C refers to awarding an adjusted score. Since a result was obtained on the board, that means that Nancy should have assigned a score, and her A+/A+ was illegal. > Can we get a normal >result on this board?? West was very unhappy and said he did not think I >should be able to change my ruling. Perhaps you should invite West to *read* L82C. > At this point I think that E/W have >unauthorized information (North also has a one suited hand) and would >take no action after N bids 3 clubs. It was later determined that >West's bid was not a transfer but was showing partner where his strength >was if they had to play against a one suited hand and they had no >understanding as to what a bid over interference would mean. I discussed >this ruling with another director with about 40 years experience and he >concurred with my ruling (Law 82) but West wants a higher authority to >rule. Oh yes? > East/West are both life masters and an established partnership. >North/South are about 120 points each and not a steady partnership but >do play together sometimes. (I think this is irrelevant, though as are >the hands of each player which I do have if necessary) Does Law 21B >apply to this situation? How do I correct this awful error, and you >can sure I have learned 2 things. 1. The law regarding illegal >doubles, 2. *Always* RTFLB! >(When you make a mistake, be sure to make a big one!!--Nancy=92s problem) When you make a mistake, and correct it under L82C, that means you consider what would have happened with a correct ruling: if there is doubt then each side separately gets the benefit of the doubt. If there is no doubt then you just revert to what would have happened without the bad ruling. Sometimes players get upset when they have been given an unjustified bonus which is now taken away, but it is up to you to explain it carefully, and reasonable players will now accept this. OK, let us see what would have happened with a correct ruling. >The bidding was E. 1NT S X W P N X. Director! LAW 36 - INADMISSIBLE DOUBLE OR REDOUBLE Any double or redouble not permitted by Law 19 is cancelled. The offender must substitute a legal call, and (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side); the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply. (If the call is out of turn, see Law 32; if offender's LHO calls, see Law 35A.) So South may not bid again. North may do as she likes. If N/S are defending, L26B will apply. What would have happened then? Of course, we cannot see the whole hand. However, it seems to me that if North decides to pass, that E/W may play 2H with a lead penalty. You can see the hands: giving E/W the benefit of the doubt, what might happen? 2H-1? OK, let's give E/W 2H-1, or even 2H=3D if it could conceivably make. However, North might have shown *her* suit - spades, I presume - or even guessed at partner's suit and bid 3C herself. That last sounds a bit far-fetched. Right. Consider all the possibilities, 2H, 3C, 2S, whatever. Giving the benefit to each side in turn, what results do you come up with? Perhaps NS +110, +50, -100, -110, -140? Ok, give N/S +110, E/W +140, and they should be happy enough. I know you have beaten your own breast about not getting the Law book, and I should not rub it in. But perhaps this is the time for everyone to learn a salutary lesson. Some people on this list think I have a fair idea of the Laws: perhaps I have. This ruling was *far* too difficult for *me* to do without the Law book: I would not have a clue what the book said without checking. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + )=3D Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 13:29:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:29:32 +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 NAA13033 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:29:25 +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 WAA00487 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:29:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0VM8N028 Thu, 29 Apr 99 22:30:23 Message-ID: <9904292230.0VM8N02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 99 22:30:23 Subject: WHAT A MESS! To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anyway, I am about to test my wings at damage repair . NS have committed two infractions [MI from the failure to alert and illegal double] and have UI from N's explanation and withdrawn double. Apparently EW agreement was not 2D= transfer which is UI to W. By the quirk of the director, it is found out what S would have done if there were no enforced pass. But the director has mucked things up a bit. L82C instructs to award an assigned score where both sides are non offending. Going to L12C2... Supposedly, had there been no irregularity the double would be alerted and W would bid 2D [mistakenly alerted ], N would pass and E would bid 2H and S 3C. This would appear to be the most favorable result likely for EW absent an infraction. Since the actions were actually taken, if N had an action over 3C that would improve the score over -200, it would be the most favorable result likely for NS absent an infraction. Another possibility is that W has a sound action of 3H over 3C but it seems extremely unlikely given the level and from West's explanation that 2D was solely defense directing. B>Law 82 C says =93If a Director has given a ruling that he or the chief B>director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no B>rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award B>an adjusted score, considering both sides non offending for that B>purpose=94 B>I made an error in a ruling at the local game. It was the second hand B>and I had to fill in for a player who had not arrived and the game was B>late, etc.. but I should have gotten the book. The bidding was E. 1 B>NT S X W P N X. Director! I did not grab the law book nor did I go B>get the law book before making the ruling....(2 BIG mistakes) and it B>gets worse!!! I ruled that the illegal double would be converted to a B>pass as the illegal doubler says =93I should alert my partner=92s B>double,= it B>shows a one suited hand=94. She adds, =93we have just started playing B>DON= T B>and I was so intent on making a double I didn't see my partner's B>double.=94 Now West says =93I would have bid if I had known that=94 so B>= I B>allowed West to bid and he bid 2 diamonds. I told the illegal doubler B>to pass for one round. East Alerts West's bid as a transfer and after B>N=92s forced pass, bids 2 hearts and South (who should have been B>barred), bids 3 Clubs followed by three passes. E/W scored 200. After B>the late player arrived, I was uncomfortable with my ruling and now -s- 2. *Always* RTFLB! Nancy, you may now rule at my table . Roger Pewick Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 13:35:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:35:38 +1000 Received: from nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au (nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au [147.109.36.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13063 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:35:21 +1000 Received: from Forestry-Message_Server by nwgate.forestry.tas.gov.au with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:38:18 +1000 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:37:49 +1000 From: "Simon Edler" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of Call 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 Firstly, apologies if this comes out a bit reader unfriendly. My e-mail doesn=27t nicely indent the text I am replying to, so it is a bit tricky to intersperse my comments. I=27ll try and delineate my comments between =23=23=23=23=23=23=23 Secondly, is the lack of posting on this thread due to the=20 unavailability of law books? I know I had to read mine for quite a while before coming up with the answers=21 In summary, I think the director got just about all of this right, apart from one omission at the end. >>> Peter Newman 28/04/99 10:14:06 >>> Hi all, Playing in a state selection event the following occurred. N E S W 1C* P P 1C=3D15+ At which point South realised that they had passed accidentally their partners strong club. The director was called and they asked what the situation was: The director ruled that correction under L25A was not appropriate=20 =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 To my understanding, this is correct, if I read =22South realised that = they had passed accidently their partners strong club=22 as =22South intended to pass but had not noticed their partners strong club=22=20 =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 (as a side issue I am still not clear about this - one of the kibitzers said = that a Pass could never be corrected under L25A which seemed particularly strange. That strange decision in Vancouver reinforced my opinion. It = seems to me the game would be much easier if we just stood by what we bid/played (allowing only corrections for mechanical errors eg. caused by stuck bidding cards)). =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 Don=27t agree with the kibitzer=27s unilateral statement, but do admit I = am having a hard time to think of a situation where a pass could be deemed to be inadvertent. =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 We moved on to L25B. LHO had still not called and tried substituting 1D. =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 South tried substituting 1D - took me a minute to work this out=21 =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 This created the (IMHO) ridiculous situation that my partner (I was = sitting E) had the chance to let the auction proceed without penalty. I do not understand the rationale for a player being placed in this invidious position. Can you imagine an LOL not condoning the changed bid of Bobby Wolff/Goldman/Hamman etc.? Why should someone be forced to be nice/nasty?= =5D Anyway, the 1D bid was not accepted.=20 Now, director explained to S that they could change their bid from P to anything they liked but the maximum they could get on the board would be = -3 imps if they so chose. They decided to Pass. North was now told they must pass on the next round of the bidding. =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 Seems correct to me =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 Let me recap the auction: N E S W 1C P P =3D cancelled 1D =3D cancelled P X 2C North in the excitement caused by the proceedings forgot they must Pass = and bid 2C. The director cancelled the 2C call (I couldn=27t even accept it - = why not? the laws don=27t seem very consistent in this area) and now NS were forced to Pass for the remainder of the auction.... =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 Note the end of L37 Action Violating Obligation to Pass. It says =22(If offender=27s LHO calls, see L35B)=22 Now L35B says what happens if = you had called over North=27s 2C. So if you were quick enough...:) =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 The final auction: N E S W 1C P P =3D cancelled 1D =3D cancelled P X 2C =3D cancelled P 1D P 1H// =5BNote for those interested X=3Dgood hand, 1D=3D-ve - anyone discussed = their defence to a precision auction starting 1C P P ?? where the 1C opener has to pass at the next opportunity?=21=5D The director now ruled that declarer could demand or prohibit the lead of any suit because the cancelled 1D bid was artificial. =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 So, W is declarer and N is on lead, so this is a correct ruling because of South=27s withdrawn 1D call. BUT North also had a withdrawn call - 2C - so South should also have been subject to a lead penalty the first time they were on lead. (L37 also refers to the lead penalties of L26) =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 It seemed very interesting at the time. Were all the rulings correct? =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 Apart from the omission of the lead penalty on South, I believe the rulings to be correct. =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 =5BI certainly had no complaint with the way the matter was handled - the director was very good in coping with a quite unusual situation.=5D Rgds, Peter Newman =5BIt matters not the slightest on the actual hand - 1H making +170 on friendly splits was the datum in a butler scored event=5D NSWBA webmaster http://nswba.com.au=20 =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 Regards, Simon Edler, Database Administrator, Information Technology Branch, Forestry Tasmania Email: Simon.Edler=40forestry.tas.gov.au =23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23=23 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 18:56:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA13661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:56:22 +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 SAA13656 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:56:15 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-248.uunet.be [194.7.148.248]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA24578 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:56:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <372835C2.F87AA560@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:34:42 +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: Established revoke? References: <199904290951.LAA18186@hera.frw.uva.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > Please comment on the following situations: > (in the NL, defenders may ask declarer about a possible revoke, > but not one another) > > 1. > South, declarer in a spade contract, plays a diamond which is > ruffed by West. East, suspecting that his partner has another > diamond, waits several seconds before playing to this trick. West > wakes up, shows his diamond and the establishment of a revoke is > prevented. > > 2. > South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed > by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another > diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any > diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one > who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the > revoke to become established. > > Has East violated L61B? If not, are there other laws preventing him > to get away with murder? > Answers to both cases : While technically perhaps not in breach of L61B, it is generally considered to be just as bad, and the same ruling applies. Source, among others, Ton Kooijman. I fail to see why the Law has the word "ask" in it, when "inquire" might have been more general, and clearly would include these two cases. Remark that the heading does say "inquire". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 30 19:58:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA13792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:58:01 +1000 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA13787 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:57:50 +1000 Received: from [158.152.187.206] (helo=bridge.casewise.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10dA3D-000Brx-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 09:57:44 +0000 Received: by BRIDGE with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) id ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:52:56 +0100 Message-ID: <90A8793454EED21187920060972614BB012118@BRIDGE> From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Established revoke? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:52:54 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1457.3) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > >Actually, I believe there's UI in case 1, but not in case 2. In > case > > >1, East transmitted the information that something about his hand > made > > >him suspect West revoked. Presumably, this wouldn't happen if > East's > > >diamonds were long, so East's actions put an upper limit on the > number > > >of diamonds he can have. This is UI for West. However, in case 2, > > >the only information transmitted is that East knows how to count to > > >thirteen. If both declarer and partner show out, and one or both > of > > >them revoked, then East obviously will know that somebody goofed > > >(although he won't know who). The fact that he figured this out > > >doesn't say anything about his hand, so there's no UI here. > > > > If I show out, my RHO [declarer] shows out, then I have a complete > > count of the diamonds in partners' hand: if he asks the question it > > gives me the information that my count of his diamonds is wrong. > Surely > > that is UI? > > I think I covered this in my response to David Grabiner. To restate: > I now have information that my count of partner's diamonds is wrong. > The only way my count of partner's diamonds could be wrong is if > declarer has revoked. ####### Or I have! ########### If declarer had > followed the Laws, I would have > correct AI about partner's count in the suit; this is AI to which I am > entitled, since RHO has followed the Laws. Thus, in the case that RHO > revoked, partner's question has given me information that's the same > as the AI I would have gotten if RHO had followed the Laws. To me, > this means that this information cannot be unauthorized, since it's > information I was supposed to get, and was legally entitled to get. I > guess you could say that "technically, it's UI, but it can't possibly > cause any L16A restrictions"; if that's the case, we're just arguing > about terminology. But to me, the idea that information to which I'm > entitled can become information that I have to bend over backwards to > avoid using, because of an *opponent's* infraction, is a perversion of > the Laws. > > ############## As the person who introduced UI into this discussion, > I would just like to clarify that I think UI is only given in the case > where it is the defender who has revoked and is woken up by partner's > question. IE, if I have inadvertently hidden one card behind another > in my hand then my count is wrong and it is partner's question that > alerts me to this. ##############