From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 1 00:14:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 00:14:22 +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 AAA16364 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 00:14:11 +1000 Received: from pppikooijmainter (vp207-169.worldonline.nl [195.241.207.169]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25393; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:14:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000801be9314$427d75e0$a9cff1c3@pppikooijmainter.nl.net> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Established revoke? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:17:56 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yes I have an opinion about this (well known) issue and even expressed it. But either Herman has misunderstood me or I have changed it lately. Let me explain: case 1: East should not during the play act so as to call attention to a significant occurrence. (somebody noticing that my English looks like English in this sentence, I have to admit it is stolen: see law 74C4). Which means that waiting like East did is a breach of proprieties. I can imagine that some of us do not like to call East's behaviour a question to his partner (indeed law 61 talks about asking), but that interpretation is to strict. What do we do with East saying: ' partner we play diamonds this trick!!'. That certainly is not a question either. So let us agree with the interpretation that by drawing partner's attention to the suit being played in a trick a defender infringes law 61B (OK, not in the ACBL). A couple of years ago I teedeed in Tel Aviv where Belladonna-Forquet where playing and Belladonna had revoked. Forquet who had won the trick just set there and didn't play anymore. But Belladonna didn't wake up. The opponents called me and I decided according to what is written above. It took another couple of minutes to explain the laws to them and then playing almost double dummy they succeeded in transferring only one trick. case 2: but there is an exception when a defender asks declarer. I brought this situation under Edgar's attention many years ago and his opinion was that since the laws allow this question, a defender can't be penalized (he seemed to be not aware of this anomaly). That is what David S. said too. I expressed my practical approach in the use of the laws before. How can you prove that defender asked this question to awake his partner? You can't, though a TD might give it a try. If declarer didn't follow suit before, hang East. But what to do if East, winning the last trick, on your question why he asked declarer, tells you that his play in the next trick depends on the knowledge of the position of the last diamo nd? In Jan Peter Pals' example there is only one remaining diamond, what if there are still 5? The reason Edgar wasn't aware of this problem has to do with the ACBL not creating this problem by allowing these questions. Till some time ago I had the idea that questioning your opponent is something a player will never do, which could support the impression that asking then can only have one aim: to awake partner. But it is certainly possible to compose situations in which asking is to your own benefit. The most spectacular happened in India more than a year ago and was published in the IBPA bulletin ( may be also in BLML) Declarer plays 6NT and the club Ace is led. The dummy is laid down and it appears that declarer is going to lose the first 4, 5 or 6 tricks in clubs. He plays a club from dummy, RHO doesn't follow suit and he plays a club. This is the moment to ask RHO about his clubs! Declarer did, RHO had a club and had to play it, his previously played card becoming a penaltycard. And now declarer demanded his LHO to play a card of that suit, 6NT made. The best example of the advantage by knowing the laws as a player, I know of. I put this problem in my booklet, with preference to forbid this question, but the example shows that this choice is not an obvious one. I have e-mail at home since a couple of days: 't.kooyman@worldonline.nl'.(the dots on ij were not available anymore, but don't forget them mentioning my name, thank you Herman). This being a holiday in the Netherlands, our queen celebrates her birthday, gives me the opportunity to send my first message from home. Don't be afraid, I am not going to exaggerate this. ton ::---Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 12:14 PM Subject: Re: Established revoke? >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 Sat May 1 02:57:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 02:57:47 +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 CAA17454 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 02:57:38 +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 LAA26947 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 11:57:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GVAU01C Fri, 30 Apr 99 12:00:29 Message-ID: <9904301200.0GVAU01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 99 12:00:29 Subject: ESTABLISH To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It occurred to me. If questions are to be permitted about revokes, perhaps the best time is only BEFORE playing the next card after failure to follow suit. It does seem that the primary aim of such questions is to have true information for the purpose of planning play to the current trick and future tricks. The revoke penalty/ adjustment compensates the other side for [potential] lost tricks so I see no harm in a tight restriction on such questions. While I think I can visualize situations that UI would be created, it probably has an immaterial effect more often than not. Certainly, it is unfair for declarer to be able to force an opponent to change their play thereby creating a penalty card merely by asking a question after their turn. The defenders do not have such an option because declarer has no penalty cards. Looking further at the law and going back to India. Once declarer had followed suit to the OL it was LHO's turn to play. A 'heads up player' who understood the laws could have lead to the next trick and established the revoke, thereby preventing its correction and subsequent creation of a penalty card. It also seems that I can find nothing in the law that makes it illegal for defender to lead to the next trick before partner has answered the question. And had the Rueful Rabbit made that play against the Hideous Hog, it would have been a great Victor Mollo story. Roger Pewick B>Yes I have an opinion about this (well known) issue and even expressed B>it. B>But either Herman has misunderstood me or I have changed it lately. Let B>me explain: B>case 1: East should not during the play act so as to call attention to a B>significant occurrence. (somebody noticing that my English looks like B>English in this sentence, I have to admit it is stolen: see law 74C4). B>Which means that waiting like East did is a breach of proprieties. I can B>imagine that some of us do not like to call East's behaviour a question B>to his partner (indeed law 61 talks about asking), but that B>interpretation is to strict. What do we do with East saying: ' partner B>we play diamonds this trick!!'. That certainly is not a question either. B>So let us agree with the interpretation that by drawing partner's B>attention to the suit being played in a trick a defender infringes law B>61B (OK, not in the ACBL). B>A couple of years ago I teedeed in Tel Aviv where Belladonna-Forquet B>where playing and Belladonna had revoked. Forquet who had won the trick B>just set there and didn't play anymore. But Belladonna didn't wake up. B>The opponents called me and I decided according to what is written B>above. It took another couple of minutes to explain the laws to them and B>then playing almost double dummy they succeeded in transferring only one B>trick. B>case 2: but there is an exception when a defender asks declarer. I B>brought this situation under Edgar's attention many years ago and his B>opinion was that since the laws allow this question, a defender can't be B>penalized (he seemed to be not aware of this anomaly). B>That is what David S. said too. I expressed my practical approach in the B>use of the laws before. How can you prove that defender asked this B>question to awake his partner? You can't, though a TD might give it a B>try. If declarer didn't follow suit before, hang East. But what to do if B>East, winning the last trick, on your question why he asked declarer, B>tells you that his play in the next trick depends on the knowledge of B>the position of the last diamo nd? In Jan Peter Pals' example there is B>only one remaining diamond, what if there are still 5? B>The reason Edgar wasn't aware of this problem has to do with the ACBL B>not creating this problem by allowing these questions. B>Till some time ago I had the idea that questioning your opponent is B>something a player will never do, which could support the impression B>that asking then can only have one aim: to awake partner. But it is B>certainly possible to compose situations in which asking is to your own B>benefit. The most spectacular happened in India more than a year ago and B>was published in the IBPA bulletin ( may be also in BLML) Declarer plays B>6NT and the club Ace is led. The dummy is laid down and it appears that B>declarer is going to lose the first 4, 5 or 6 tricks in clubs. He plays B>a club from dummy, RHO doesn't follow suit and he plays a club. This is B>the moment to ask RHO about his clubs! Declarer did, RHO had a club and B>had to play it, his previously played card becoming a penaltycard. And B>now declarer demanded his LHO to play a card of that suit, 6NT made. The B>best example of the advantage by knowing the laws as a player, I know B>of. B>I put this problem in my booklet, with preference to forbid this B>question, but the example shows that this choice is not an obvious one. B>I have e-mail at home since a couple of days: B>'t.kooyman@worldonline.nl'.(the dots on ij were not available anymore, B>but don't forget them mentioning my name, thank you Herman). This being B>a holiday in the Netherlands, our queen celebrates her birthday, gives B>me the opportunity to send my first message from home. Don't be afraid, B>I am not going to exaggerate this. B>ton B>::---Original Message----- B>From: Herman De Wael B>To: Bridge Laws B>Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 12:14 PM B>Subject: Re: Established revoke? B>>Jan Peter Pals wrote: B>>> B>>> Please comment on the following situations: B>>> (in the NL, defenders may ask declarer about a possible revoke, B>>> but not one another) B>>> B>>> 1. B>>> South, declarer in a spade contract, plays a diamond which is B>>> ruffed by West. East, suspecting that his partner has another B>>> diamond, waits several seconds before playing to this trick. West B>>> wakes up, shows his diamond and the establishment of a revoke is B>>> prevented. B>>> B>>> 2. B>>> South is declarer in a spade contract. East plays a diamond, ruffed B>>> by declarer, overruffed by West. East is sure that there is another B>>> diamond around, so he asks declarer whether he has any B>>> diamonds left (as allowed per L61B). Of course, West is the one B>>> who had the missing diamond, and again East has prevented the B>>> revoke to become established. B>>> B>>> Has East violated L61B? If not, are there other laws preventing him B>>> to get away with murder? B>>> B>> B>>Answers to both cases : B>> B>>While technically perhaps not in breach of L61B, it is B>>generally considered to be just as bad, and the same ruling B>>applies. B>> B>>Source, among others, Ton Kooijman. B>> B>>I fail to see why the Law has the word "ask" in it, when B>>"inquire" might have been more general, and clearly would B>>include these two cases. B>>Remark that the heading does say "inquire". B>> B>>-- B>>Herman DE WAEL B>>Antwerpen Belgium B>>http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html B>> B>> B>> B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 1 07:20:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 07:20:00 +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 HAA18070 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 07:19:53 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-10.ts-2.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.58]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA01310; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:19:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <372971F3.1B81211D@idt.net> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 02:03:47 -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: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org CC: blml Subject: Re: A COMMITT References: <9904272040.0T1JO02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger. Perhaps I am guilty of assuming too much, but North made it quite clear that he wanted to bid 2C but couldn't. If the director didn't ask the question, it sure came up in the committee, and I think we all knew that North would have bid 2C without the MI. Irv r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org wrote: > > 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 Sat May 1 07:22:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA18091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 07:22:10 +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 HAA18086 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 07:22:03 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (8055) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pCXPa05685 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:21:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 17:21:04 EDT Subject: Re: Opinions, Please 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 246 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I completely agree. Craig Hemphill In a message dated 4/29/99 12:17:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hdavis@erols.com writes: << 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. >> From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 1 08:08:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 08:08:39 +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 IAA18153 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 08:08:33 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-105.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.206]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA20247 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:18:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <372A2B1C.87652BA6@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:13:49 -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 hand Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9AEFE26A4D4A6E45EBDF865E" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk --------------9AEFE26A4D4A6E45EBDF865E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the hand for "What a Mess". N T983 KQ9653 A43 W -- E J76 AK E Deal NS Vul 87 JT2 E S W N Q8762 KJT5 1 NT X P X Director JT2 A876 2D^* P^ S 2H 3C all pass Q542 * announced transfer A4 ^ bid taken after director rule 9 KQ9543 Can we get a result on this layout??? Nancy --------------9AEFE26A4D4A6E45EBDF865E Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is the hand for "What a Mess".
                N
              T983
              KQ9653
              A43
     W        --             E
 J76                        AK                       E Deal NS Vul
 87                         JT2                      E    S   W   N
 Q8762                      KJT5                     1 NT X   P   X   Director
 JT2                        A876                             2D^* P^
               S                                     2H   3C   all pass
             Q542                                * announced transfer
             A4                                  ^ bid taken after director rule
             9
             KQ9543

Can we get a result on this layout???

Nancy --------------9AEFE26A4D4A6E45EBDF865E-- From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 1 08:17:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 08:17:17 +1000 Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA18180 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 08:17:12 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-105.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.206]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA21451 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:27:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <372A2D22.E2825976@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 18:22:26 -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: One more question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Next day, local dupe. After the game, an E/W pair examining their summary note that they had bid 3 D on a board and made 5 for 150 the director had given them 110. The director scored from the traveller which showed 3D for 110 West stated that she had played the hand and with a cross ruff made 5. The North/South pair said she made three, both E\W had 150 written on their private score and N/S no longer had their score card.. The board in question had been used in a morning bridge class and no longer existed. The proper score would put E/W in first place! (different director! whew!) Who do you believe and what do you do? Bridge in Pinehurst is always challenging! Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 1 15:02:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA19126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 15:02:00 +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 PAA19121 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 15:01:53 +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 WAA20945 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000e01be938f$b5259ca0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: 1999 Cavendish Invitational Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:01:36 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just read the Conditions of Contest (CoC) for the subject game, which will be held May 5-9 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas The 1998 Cavendish had 60 pairs playing in a complete 5-session Howell, in which each pair played two boards against every other pair, 118 boards over three days, no qualifying sessions. The boards were played simultaneously, barometer style. Here are some interesting excerpts from the 1999 CoC, delimited by #s: ####### 1, .There will be 56 to 64 pairs entered in this event which will consist of three qualifying and two final sessions The qualifying sessions will each be 13 two-board rounds. ####### This looks like an improvement, since bidding tends to get a bit wild when pairs who are out of the running come down toward the end. Too bad the CoC doesn't mention the movement to be used in the qualifying rounds. ####### The final will have the top 20 pairs playing a complete Round Robin in three-board segments (nine rounds on Saturday evening and ten on Sunday afternoon). The secondary final for the balance of the original field will also be played in 19 three-board rounds over two sessions. ####### Looks like the "Round Robin" for the finalists will be a perfect Howell, all pairs meeting, 9 comparisons on every board, with each pair "teamed" and comparing with every other pair the same number of times. Very neat. There is no mention of carryover scores for the finals and "consolation." One would think the CoC would cover this point if carryovers were applicable, so probably they are not. ####### Pairings for the qualifying and secondary final sessions will be done in some sensible fashion, the details of which will also be published in the Tournament Bulletin prior to the Auction. ####### Hmm. ####### The boards will be played simultaneously, barometer style. ####### Can't tell if this applies to the qualifying sessions, or to all sessions. ####### The maximum swing on any single comparison will be 17 IMPs times the number of comparisons. ####### This is a change from 1998, which did not have "times the number of comparisons," just "The maximum swing on any single comparison will be 17 IMPs." Instead of limiting individual comparisons to 17 IMPs, the average of all IMPs scored on a board is so limited. That seems like a much better rule, if there is to be a limitation. A pair can now score 24 IMPs on a comparison, the maximum on the IMP-scale, provided there aren't too many of them on one board. The new rule seems to be screwed up, adding new words without changing some of the old ones. I think what they mean is that the maximum +/- score on a board will be 17 times the number of comparisons, which is +/- 153 in the finals. In my vocabulary a "swing" is the algebraic sum of the two scores, e.g., +8.5 for one side and -8.5 for the other is a 17-IMP swing. Obviously they don't mean that. Also, it should be "times the number of results," not "times the number of comparisons." The limitation should be a function of the number (n) of pairs comparing, not n-1, the number of comparisons. Why should the scores be limited at all? It's like limiting a maximum matchpoint score to 55 when top is 64. If an SO feels that the IMP-scale is not suitable for IMP-Pairs, they ought to change it from top to bottom instead of decapitating it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 1 18:13:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA19344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 18:13:54 +1000 Received: from Q.inter.net.il (q.internet-zahav.net [192.116.192.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA19339 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 18:13:45 +1000 Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.215]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.8.8/8.8.6/PA) with ESMTP id LAA00142 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 11:13:35 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <372AB7EA.785B0BBB@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 11:14:34 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: D-BLML list - the clever friends - April 99 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML members Here is the 8th release of the new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Sammy (4) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 7&1/2 years black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 1 19:04:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 May 1999 19:04:48 +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 TAA19378 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 19:04:41 +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 LAA23443; Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01738; Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:04:06 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Nancy T Dressing cc: bridge-laws Subject: Re: One more question In-Reply-To: <372A2D22.E2825976@pinehurst.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > Next day, local dupe. After the game, an E/W pair examining their > summary note that they had bid 3 D on a board and made 5 for 150 the > director had given them 110. The director scored from the traveller > which showed 3D for 110 West stated that she had played the hand and > with a cross ruff made 5. The North/South pair said she made three, > both E\W had 150 written on their private score and N/S no longer had > their score card.. The board in question had been used in a morning > bridge class and no longer existed. The proper score would put E/W in > first place! (different director! whew!) Who do you believe and what > do you do? Bridge in Pinehurst is always challenging! Score stands. It is impossible to find out what really happened on the board and the next day is well beyond the 30 minutes limit from L79C. So, EW may be right, but it's too late to do anything about it. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 02:32:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 02:32:50 +1000 Received: from dc.isx.com (washington.dc.isx.com [204.145.242.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22693 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 02:32:41 +1000 Received: from [207.226.97.117] (pinn-max3-94.pinn.net [207.226.98.94]) by dc.isx.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA24748 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 12:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Sender: pbigfoot@198.252.201.9 Message-Id: Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 12:31:15 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Haglich Subject: Insufficient Bid Accepted, Now What? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last night in a local ACBL Sectional tournament (OK, flame retardant underwear is now on) I had an interesting consideration in an unusual auction. LHO Prd RHO Me 1D 1C* P ? * LHO sees the 1C bid and says "insufficient". Partner starts to take the 1C card back to the box, ponders what he should do, then says "You better call the Director", and then calls the Director himself. With some awkwardness (including Director taking my partner from the table for a 2 minute discussion) the Director explains the options to my RHO, who then surprises me by accepting the insufficient bid and passing! (I'd heard that it was almost never to a player's advantage to accept an opponent's insufficient bid, but she did it anyway). Question: What are my ethical considerations? Am I permitted to allow for the fact that prd had a basic 1C opener (could be short as 3) and didn't see the opponent's opening 1D bid? Am I supposed to treat it as a club "overcall"? Help! From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 02:36:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 02:36:05 +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 CAA22712 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 02:35:57 +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 MAA08055 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 12:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA14904 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 1 May 1999 12:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 12:36:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905011636.MAA14904@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Established revoke? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > 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. Are the Dutch translations of 'ask' and 'inquire' different? In English, they are virtual synonyms when used for verbal interactions. > From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > Looking further at the law and going back to India. Once declarer had > followed suit to the OL it was LHO's turn to play. A 'heads up player' who > understood the laws could have lead to the next trick and established the > revoke, thereby preventing its correction and subsequent creation of a > penalty card. Not if declarer leaves his card face up while asking. But no doubt it would make a good Victor Mollo story: the Hog as West, Secretary Bird as South, and of course the Rabbit as East. I suppose Karapet would be the unlucky North. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 03:57:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 03:57:34 +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 DAA22824 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 03:57:27 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id NAA27664; Sat, 1 May 1999 13:57:19 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000e01be938f$b5259ca0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 10:50:20 -0700 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 1999 Cavendish Invitational Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:01 PM -0700 4/30/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >Too bad the CoC doesn't mention the movement to be used in the >qualifying rounds. I've been told the field will be split into two halves, seeded by the auction, and each half will play a complete round-robin. >####### >The boards will be played simultaneously, barometer style. >####### > >Can't tell if this applies to the qualifying sessions, or to all >sessions. All, I'm certain. >####### >The maximum swing on any single comparison will be 17 IMPs times the >number of comparisons. >####### > >This is a change from 1998, which did not have "times the number of >comparisons," just "The maximum swing on any single comparison will be >17 IMPs." Instead of limiting individual comparisons to 17 IMPs, the >average of all IMPs scored on a board is so limited. I doubt any change from previous years is intended. If that's so, though, I can't tell you why they changed the wording. >Why should the scores be limited at all? It's like limiting a maximum >matchpoint score to 55 when top is 64. If an SO feels that the IMP-scale >is not suitable for IMP-Pairs, they ought to change it from top to >bottom instead of decapitating it. No argument here - I've written about this before. I've passed your concerns on to the tournament committee. __ Adam Wildavsky - adamw@panix.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 04:12:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 04:12:07 +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 EAA22876 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 04:12:00 +1000 Received: (from adamw@localhost) by mail2.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) id OAA28703; Sat, 1 May 1999 14:11:54 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000e01be938f$b5259ca0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:11:14 -0700 To: From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: 1999 Cavendish Invitational Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The conditions of contest are available at http://www.thecavendish.com/1999/condpairs.html __ Adam Wildavsky From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 04:50:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 04:50:12 +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 EAA23027 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 04:50:05 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3701) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id cRKQa20981; Sat, 1 May 1999 14:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29c977f8.245ca64f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 14:47:43 EDT Subject: Re: Established revoke? To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, hermandw@village.uunet.be, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/30/99 10:19:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > A couple of years ago I teedeed in Tel Aviv where Belladonna-Forquet where > playing and Belladonna had revoked. Forquet who had won the trick just set > there and didn't play anymore. But Belladonna didn't wake up. The opponents > called me and I decided according to what is written above. It took another > couple of minutes to explain the laws to them and then playing almost double > dummy they succeeded in transferring only one trick. ++++ Kojak and Gester returned to Tampa. Concerning the above: in Ocho Rios under the Chairmanship of Ed Theus on the motion of Edgar Kaplan it was agreed that the penalty referred to in Law 43B2(b) is the TWO TRICK penalty in Law 64. Law 61B refers back to 43B2(b).[Incidentally this ruling was referred back to and refreshed recently in Lille.] It would seem therefore that the play skill mentioned was such as to limit themselves to only one trick lost after the revoke; in Law 64 two tricks are only transferred when there are two such tricks to transfer. ++++ > > case 2: but there is an exception when a defender asks declarer. I brought > this situation under Edgar's attention many years ago and his opinion was > that since the laws allow this question, a defender can't be penalized (he > seemed to be not aware of this anomaly). +++ I, gester, am able to confirm that E.K. was indeed aware of this anomaly and did indeed take the view here expressed. I can add that under his chairmanship the WBFLC, perhaps (we might say kindly) having more urgent problems to consider, made no move to remedy the fault. Kojak and gester are in agreement that it would be desirable to review this whole area of law at an early date. We are flexible on what changes might be made to improve the operation of the law. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 05:02:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 05:02:41 +1000 Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA23068 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 05:02:35 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3701) by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vJTTa17022; Sat, 1 May 1999 15:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2bd7d4fd.245ca97a@aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 15:01:14 EDT Subject: Re: Established revoke? 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/1/99 12:36:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > A 'heads up player' who > > understood the laws could have lead to the next trick and established the > > revoke, thereby preventing its correction and subsequent creation of a > > penalty card. > > Not if declarer leaves his card face up while asking. Tampa speaks: to avoid an explosion in Western Florida please say whether there is a version of the game in which a card played by a defender and then withdrawn to correct an unestablished revoke is not a major penalty card? If "no" where's the difference in what you say? If "yes", what law reference? K & G. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 09:05:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 09:05:44 +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 JAA23857 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 09:05:38 +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 QAA13340; Sat, 1 May 1999 16:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006801be9427$1ec03160$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: References: Subject: Re: 1999 Cavendish Invitational Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 16:04:59 -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:, > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Too bad the CoC doesn't mention the movement to be used in the > >qualifying rounds. > > I've been told the field will be split into two halves, seeded by the > auction, and each half will play a complete round-robin. Seeding by the auction is a great idea, I hadn't thought of that. Let's see, if there are 60 Pairs that would be 30 pairs in each half, 29 rounds, three boards a round I presume, to be played over three sessions. However, the CoC says that there will 13 two-board rounds in each of the three qualifying sessions, and that's 39 opponents, not 29. They must have changed their minds. I couldn't figure out how they were going to do what the CoC says, and I guess they couldn't either! Of course the comparisons will be ATF, so if there are 60 pairs that will mean 29 comparisons on each board. If the score limitation is 17 IMPs x 29 comparisons, top on a board will be 493. if the multiplier were the number of results, top on a board would be 17 x 30 = 510. > > >####### > >The maximum swing on any single comparison will be 17 IMPs times the > >number of comparisons. > >####### > > > >This is a change from 1998, which did not have "times the number of > >comparisons," just "The maximum swing on any single comparison will be > >17 IMPs." Instead of limiting individual comparisons to 17 IMPs, the > >average of all IMPs scored on a board is so limited. > > I doubt any change from previous years is intended. If that's so, though, I > can't tell you why they changed the wording. Perhaps the previous wording did not accord with the rule as implemented, and as stated in the 1999 CoC. If each comparison is limited to 17 IMPs, then you would have to score the maximum 17 IMPs on every comparison to obtain a top. If scores on a board are limited to 17 x the number of comparisons, then you could score 20 on half and 14 on the other half to obtain a top. The "consolation" event will be about 40 pairs, after 20 are qualified for the finals. This "secondary event" will evidently play two separate round robins, mimicking the finals, three boards a round, two sessions, with appropriate seeding to balance the two halves. I'm still interested in whether fulll carryovers will apply? Thanks to Adam for providing the www address for the 1999 Cavendish, which I should have done: http://www.thecavendish.com/1999/condpairs.html This is a page on the great Bridge Plaza website, www. bridgeplaza.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 11:45:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 11:45:43 +1000 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA24113 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 11:45:37 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (8006) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id nLLEa24953; Sat, 1 May 1999 21:44:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 21:44:40 EDT Subject: Re: A Committee in Los Angeles To: hdavis@erols.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/26/99 5:12:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hdavis@erols.com writes: > 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 > ++++ This opinion has my wholehearted concurrence in every detail except one. How can a bid be "sufficiently" egregious? Either it is egregious or it is not. It is the fudged interpretation of the word 'egregious' applying it to conditions that are less than egregious which has appalled in the past; this is why the WBFLC has moved to combine 'irrational' with 'wild or gambling' (two Kaplan terms) to define more indisputably the level of what is 'egregious'. (What is "more" doing here?). Neither of the referenced bids was 'irrational, wild or gambling', so I include this point in my overall agreement. Gester. ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 11:45:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 11:45:34 +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 LAA24107 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 11:45:28 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (8006) by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 8CHVa02289; Sat, 1 May 1999 21:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 21:44:39 EDT Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? To: a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 4/27/99 6:45:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: > And further and this is the complexity, IMO, once play ceases dummy is > >no longer dummy, ++++ Here in Tampa we have picked up a bunch of postings on this thread. Far too much to attempt to read in a day at the console. And no doubt this error has been picked up. But just in case.... Dummy is declarer's partner and becomes so when the opening lead is faced. At no point in the laws is this designation and status said to cease. For all time on this particular hand he is then dummy after the opening lead is faced. Even in the appeal committee. For corroboration of this statement see Law 9A2(b)(i) which says that "dummy" may do something "after play of the hand is concluded". This clearly designates the player who does it to be "dummy" still. Gester (with a nod from Kojak). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 16:43:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 16:43:03 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA24556 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 16:42:58 +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 XAA05267 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 23:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00fd01be9467$0433d280$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Dummy rules OK? Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 23:42:53 -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: > In a message dated 4/27/99 6:45:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: > > > And further and this is the complexity, IMO, once play ceases dummy is > > >no longer dummy, > > ++++ Here in Tampa we have picked up a bunch of postings on this thread. Far > too much to attempt to read in a day at the console. And no doubt this error > has been picked up. But just in case.... > Dummy is declarer's partner and becomes so when the opening lead is > faced. At no point in the laws is this designation and status said to cease. > For all time on this particular hand he is then dummy after the opening lead > is faced. Even in the appeal committee. > For corroboration of this statement see Law 9A2(b)(i) which says > that "dummy" may do something "after play of the hand is concluded". This > clearly designates the player who does it to be "dummy" still. Gester (with > a nod from Kojak). > Also L68D: "After any claim or concession, play ceases....If it is disputed by any player (dummy included)...." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 16:54:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA24582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 16:54:10 +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 QAA24577 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 16:54:05 +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 XAA06314 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010901be9468$92089c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Insufficient Bid Accepted, Now What? Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 23:53:57 -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 From: Peter Haglich > Last night in a local ACBL Sectional tournament (OK, flame retardant > underwear is now on) I had an interesting consideration in an unusual > auction. > > LHO Prd RHO Me > 1D 1C* P ? > > * LHO sees the 1C bid and says "insufficient". Partner starts to > take the 1C card back to the box, ponders what he should do, then > says "You better call the Director", and then calls the Director > himself. With some awkwardness (including Director taking my partner > from the table for a 2 minute discussion) the Director explains the > options to my RHO, who then surprises me by accepting the > insufficient bid and passing! (I'd heard that it was almost never to > a player's advantage to accept an opponent's insufficient bid, but > she did it anyway). > > Question: What are my ethical considerations? Am I permitted to > allow for the fact that prd had a basic 1C opener (could be short as > 3) and didn't see the opponent's opening 1D bid? Am I supposed to > treat it as a club "overcall"? Help! > The 1C bid is treated as legal after being accepted, per L27A. L16 says that "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls or plays." You may treat it as a normal 1C opening in your system, and are free to utilize information gained from the 1D bid (also a legal bid, of course). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 18:21:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:09 +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 SAA24698 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:02 +1000 Received: from pppikooijmainter (vp207-52.worldonline.nl [195.241.207.52]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA08809; Sun, 2 May 1999 10:20:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001401be936a$bbaac520$34cff1c3@pppikooijmainter.nl.net> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: Established revoke? Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 02:36:44 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >It took another couple of minutes to explain the laws to them and then playing almost >double dummy they succeeded in transferring only one trick. >++++ Kojak and Gester returned to Tampa. which makes them a dangerous couple again. > Concerning the above: in Ocho Rios under the Chairmanship of Ed >Theus on the motion of Edgar Kaplan it was agreed that the penalty referred >to in Law 43B2(b) is the TWO TRICK penalty in Law 64. Law 61B refers back to >43B2(b).[Incidentally this ruling was referred back to and refreshed recently >in Lille.] It would seem therefore that the play skill mentioned was such as >to limit themselves to only one trick lost after the revoke; in Law 64 two >tricks are only transferred when there are two such tricks to transfer. ++++ I don't understand what you are telling me here. Change 'lost' in 'won' and I am able to follow you again. But now I realise that we might have a different interpretation of the meaning of a TWO TRICK penalty. Are you saying that this penalty is automatic? It happened before '97 and after '85. Belladonna-Forquet, being defenders , did not win the revoking trick and succeeded avoiding winning a trick with a card etc..., still winning all possible tricks (more than one). So I told them to transfer one trick. What was wrong with that? This has nothing to do with law 43B2(b). And even being declarer and dummy having behaved to make 443B2(b) applicable it is possible to transfer only one trick after winning more than one, starting with the revoking trick. Or are you suggesting that the two trick penalty is automatic, regardless the way declarer won them (and won at least two of course)? In that case we have a discussion to start. (I shouldn't have taken a private e-mail address, the sun is shining (it is a sunday), and I am not in Florida, where this is an automatic penalty). Anyway have a good time, and tell us something about your adventure outside. ton From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 18:21:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:11 +1000 Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA24700 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:04 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-79.uunet.be [194.7.150.79]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08568 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 10:20:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <372B40A3.52125B05@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 19:57:55 +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: Insufficient Bid Accepted, Now What? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Peter Haglich wrote: > > Last night in a local ACBL Sectional tournament (OK, flame retardant > underwear is now on) I had an interesting consideration in an unusual > auction. > > LHO Prd RHO Me > 1D 1C* P ? > > * LHO sees the 1C bid and says "insufficient". Partner starts to > take the 1C card back to the box, ponders what he should do, then > says "You better call the Director", and then calls the Director > himself. With some awkwardness (including Director taking my partner > from the table for a 2 minute discussion) the Director explains the > options to my RHO, who then surprises me by accepting the > insufficient bid and passing! (I'd heard that it was almost never to > a player's advantage to accept an opponent's insufficient bid, but > she did it anyway). > >From what you tell me, you are not in the possession at this moment of any UI. The TD did right in getting the necessary answers off the table. The 1C call itself, once accepted, is AI of course. The reasons why he did it, when he tells you, would be UI. But he has not told you, so you are allowed to guess, and that guess is AI. > Question: What are my ethical considerations? Am I permitted to > allow for the fact that prd had a basic 1C opener (could be short as > 3) and didn't see the opponent's opening 1D bid? Am I supposed to > treat it as a club "overcall"? Help! Since a club overcall is rather odd, I bet it's an opening. So can you. In fact, there is a far more interesting question behind the corner. Before accepting, the TD should have told the table what the penalties would be for not accepting. These penalties are different for different intentions of 1Cl. Or to make it clear : suppose you are playing strong clubs, but a 2Cl overcall is natural. The bidding goes as it was, and TD asks partner, off the table, what he intended. If he intended to overcall, he can change to 2Cl, if he intended to open, you would be barred. When the TD explains this to the table, you now know the meaning of 1Cl. Is that knowledge AI or UI ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 18:21:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:10 +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 SAA24699 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 18:21:02 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-150-79.uunet.be [194.7.150.79]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08562 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 10:20:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <372B3F00.E82DF5DD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 19:50:56 +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: <199905011636.MAA14904@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 > > 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. > > Are the Dutch translations of 'ask' and 'inquire' different? In > English, they are virtual synonyms when used for verbal interactions. > Virtual synonyms, yes. I understand "ask" to mean, posing a question, verbally. Whereas "inquire" is the action of trying to find out. Thus, a "questioning shrug" ("huh ?") is an inquiry, yet one cannot say that it is "asked". I may be wrong of course, but that is what I meant. And no, dutch does not have more synonyms in this case, although "vragen" en "ondervragen" may give similar differences in meaning. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 2 19:37:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 May 1999 19:37:55 +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 TAA24860 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 19:37:39 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-107-43.uunet.be [194.7.107.43]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18188 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 11:35:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <372C1031.B0BDDC0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 10:43:29 +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: <29c977f8.245ca64f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Concerning this two-trick penalty. Let's get matters straight. South is declarer. West revokes. East asks partner, and this is not in America. West finds a card in that trick. The revoke is corrected. Some cards played subsequently to the same trick may be changed. The trick is finished with three possibilities : A) West has won the trick B) East had won the trick C) Declarer (in hand or dummy) has won the trick. West has a penalty card and suffers the consequences thereof. We assume that East-West make some more tricks, as otherwise there is nothing more to be transferred than revoke trick itself. Again there are two possibilities. 1) West wins another trick in the revoke suit. 2) West does not. The way I read the referral to the two-trick penalty, I transfer two if A) or 1), but only one in B2) and C2). Two questions, particularly of the sunny dutch-florida connection : - is that indeed the case ? - why aren't the Laws written more clearly to say this ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 01:10:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 01:10:06 +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 BAA27697 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 01:09:57 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (575) by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id cSOPa13007; Sun, 2 May 1999 11:07:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 11:07:02 EDT Subject: Re: Established revoke? To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, hermandw@village.uunet.be, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/2/99 4:20:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > And even being declarer and dummy having behaved to make 443B2(b) > applicable it is possible to transfer only one trick after winning more than > one, starting with the revoking trick. Or are you suggesting that the two > trick penalty is automatic, regardless the way declarer won them (and won at > least two of course)? > In that case we have a discussion to start. +++ Well maybe we do have a further discussion ahead in the WBFLC. It is in the minutes from Ocho Rios that the penalty in 43B2(b) MEANS THE TWO TRICK PENALTY - excluding the one trick penalty unless there are not two tricks to transfer -- and the Lille minutes reaffirm this. It was proposed in Ocho Rios by Kaplan, seconded by one of the non-Zone 2 members and passed by general consensus. That is where we are today, tomorrow who knows......... (I have no personal view as to what we should decide next, indeed I can admit to wondering passively at the time why Kaplan had cause for introducing it, but it takes a corporate decision to change a corporate decision and I consider TD's decisions must adhere to it until it is changed). ~Grattan~ +++ >which makes them a dangerous couple again. Kojak here...... Thanks for the compliment - I'm in good company. Maybe you can make it a threesome at some future date! My records also show the Ocho Rios decision. The strong rays of the Florida sun may cause me to see things slowly, but do we not need to be careful in sorting out that the TWO TRICK penalty in contention is ONLY where DUMMY violates Law 43B2(b), and is not applicable where defenders ask each other, etc.? We are not talking about the extant zonal exceptions to Law 61B. I look forward to this being an agenda item in Lausanne, and also a possible basis upon which agreement with all Zones on the force of WBFLC interpretations could be brought about. As is Grattan, I am also open to considering in committee a different interpretation than the one we reaffirmed in Lille. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 04:02:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 04:02:58 +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 EAA28281 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 04:02:52 +1000 Received: from kooijman (vp227-209.worldonline.nl [195.241.227.209]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA05633; Sun, 2 May 1999 20:02:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000601be938b$a3e84cc0$d1e3f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: Established revoke? Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 06:32:18 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Still a sun(ny) day in the Netherlands, but I can't resist. Terrible to have a discussion like this in front of all those enjoying people. Of course we have to uphold a decision by the WBFLC even taken before my time. How can we ask for some discipline otherwise! Firstly I agree with Kojak that the Ocho Rios decision was restricted to declarer (thank you Bill). But I have to admit that I might have misinterpreted 'Ocho Rios'. I have made my own interpretation of 'the two trick penalty applies'. Law 64 doesn't use that phrase: 'two trick penalty'. It describes the penalty, which, in the number of tricks, depends on how the play develops. 43B2b refers to 64, so why did we have this discussion in Ocho Rios? Isn't the situation clear enough? And then I thought the following: declarer being brought in the situation of 43B2b has to play a legal card to the trick and takes back his 'revoking' card (which was not the case for a defender that time). Now applying 64 completely seems a bit strange: declarer plays a legal card avoiding to win the trick, and still has to transfer a trick when he later wins a trick with another card of the same suit. That hardly makes sense. The idea behind the second trick penalty is that revoker might have played the winning card following suit, not being able to win another trick with it. I have always thought that Ocho Rios decided that this trick still has to be transferred, using the 'abbreviation': the 2-trick penalty applies. But you are saying now that independent of the way the tricks are won, if declarer makes at least two tricks he has to transfer two tricks. Which by the way means that 64 does not apply at all. Please Grattan, on the agenda. Can I wait or do you want me to inform all my pupils from the last 10 years? ton > From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 04:10:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 04:10:42 +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 EAA28297 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 04:10:36 +1000 Received: from kooijman (vp227-209.worldonline.nl [195.241.227.209]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA08012; Sun, 2 May 1999 20:10:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001401be938c$b94405e0$d1e3f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Established revoke? Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 06:40:21 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry I should have raed your message before eagerly starting to answer those guys over there. For the last 10 years I dealt your interpretation, but they have some secrets we don't know of. Let us wait for their answer and ask them to think and remember before replying. By the way, I visited the bridgematch Holland-Belgium this afternoon (108 boards in two days). We won. Not much, but we won. And don't say you don't care. ton -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Sunday, May 02, 1999 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Established revoke? >Concerning this two-trick penalty. > >Let's get matters straight. > >South is declarer. >West revokes. >East asks partner, and this is not in America. >West finds a card in that trick. >The revoke is corrected. >Some cards played subsequently to the same trick may be >changed. >The trick is finished with three possibilities : > A) West has won the trick > B) East had won the trick > C) Declarer (in hand or dummy) has won the trick. >West has a penalty card and suffers the consequences >thereof. >We assume that East-West make some more tricks, as otherwise >there is nothing more to be transferred than revoke trick >itself. >Again there are two possibilities. > 1) West wins another trick in the revoke suit. > 2) West does not. > >The way I read the referral to the two-trick penalty, I >transfer two if A) or 1), but only one in B2) and C2). > >Two questions, particularly of the sunny dutch-florida >connection : >- is that indeed the case ? >- why aren't the Laws written more clearly to say this ? > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 06:41:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 06:41:48 +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 GAA28628 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 06:41:40 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (7993) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id cJWRa20980; Sun, 2 May 1999 16:38:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 16:38:44 EDT Subject: Re: Established revoke? To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/2/99 2:06:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > Still a sun(ny) day in the Netherlands, but I can't resist. Terrible to have > a discussion like this in front of all those enjoying people. +++ HI Ton: we were both slightly surprised that you chose to lead off on the internet, what might initially have been a private entre nous discussion, but we dutifully followed your lead.+++ > Firstly I agree with Kojak that the Ocho > Rios decision was restricted to declarer (thank you Bill). +++ Kojak and I browsed the laws and agreed this was the case; I may have muddied the water somewhere in the past. It is dummy who transgresses not declarer.+++ >But I have to > admit that I might have misinterpreted 'Ocho Rios'. I have made my own > interpretation of 'the two trick penalty applies'. Law 64 doesn't use that > phrase: 'two trick penalty'. It describes the penalty, which, in the number > of tricks, depends on how the play develops. 43B2b refers to 64, so why did > we have this discussion in Ocho Rios? ++++ Discussion? What discussion was that? Kaplan opened up by asking "Do we all agree that.......? Someone said "Yes, I second that....." and no-one demurred. There was immediate agreement without debate. This kind of thing was always apt to happen when we had a guru like Kaplan around. , members of the Committee are commonly making it known to me that now this is no longer the case they will expect discussion before anything fresh is settled. It has been put to me that we in Europe should seek a broader democracy in the Committee's style.++++ >Isn't the situation clear enough? And > then I thought the following: declarer being brought in the situation of > 43B2b has to play a legal card to the trick and takes back his 'revoking' > card (which was not the case for a defender that time). Now applying 64 > completely seems a bit strange: declarer plays a legal card avoiding to win > the trick, and still has to transfer a trick when he later wins a trick with > another card of the same suit. That hardly makes sense. The idea behind the > second trick penalty is that revoker might have played the winning card > following suit, not being able to win another trick with it. I have always > thought that Ocho Rios decided that this trick still has to be transferred, > using the 'abbreviation': the 2-trick penalty applies. But you are saying > now that independent of the way the tricks are won, if declarer makes at > least two tricks he has to transfer two tricks. ++++ What I regret here is that communication was poor. This was before I started writing the minutes for Edgar. I am only vaguely aware of the method of dissemination, but I think it creaked a lot. ++++ >Which by the way means that 64 does not apply at all. ++++ Kojak and I are puzzled by this statement. We think he used Law 64 to define the number of tricks, someone having asked him at some prior time (maybe on what passed then for the internet!) : "Does this mean the one trick penalty or the two trick penalty?" ++++ > Please Grattan, on the agenda. Can I wait or do > you want me to inform all my pupils from the last 10 years? ++++ agenda, yes. Your pupils are nearly all now reading this, being so intelligent, and I think enough has been made known until we can publish a further positive statement from the Committee.++++ Kojak here......... AMEN. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 07:14:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 07:14:14 +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 HAA28710 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 07:14:06 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA01304 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 May 1999 22:13:31 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 2 May 99 22:13 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Established 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: <199904290951.LAA18186@hera.frw.uva.nl> "Jan Peter Pals" wrot: > > 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. This seems a fairly tricky issue of motive. It would seem entirely normal to take a few seconds here anyway. Partner is unexpectedly on lead, you have an opportunity to make a clear signal and you have to re-evaluate declarer's holding based on the new information. If pard wakes up while you are thinking then I don't see a problem - if you hesitate in order to wake pard up I want to adjust. > 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? > L16? East's question is UI and I believe that absent the question 30%+ of players would not have noticed the revoke. Obviously the UI argument could be made in type 1 situations as well but it feels wrong. Tim > Cheers, JP From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 07:14:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA28721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 07:14:15 +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 HAA28711 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 07:14:08 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id WAA01330 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 May 1999 22:13:34 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 2 May 99 22:13 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: <3.0.1.32.19990429210845.0070dd18@pop.mindspring.com> "Michael S. Dennis" > > 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. Thanks Mike, I did indeed interpret Jan's use of percentages as being consistent with my use of "60% action" rather than David's (and the majority?). Had I not done so I would not have posted. Obviously either David or I misinterpreted Jan's meaning and if it was I then I apologise for the waste of bandwidth. I am aware that both the David and Tim usages for the phrase %age action are in everyday use (David's much more so in the UI context, Tim's more typical in post mortems) so in my posts I try and make it clear which usage I have chosen, again sorry if I failed to do that. David seeks the "expected poll results.." knowing that such polls can never realistically be taken. I suggest using mathematical analysis of the sort previously indicated as a tool for determining what those poll results would likely be. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 17:24:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA29762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 17:24:40 +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 RAA29757 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 17:24:32 +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 JAA15112; Mon, 3 May 1999 09:23:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JAR7PFKL2K0027QD@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 3 May 1999 09:22:24 +0100 Received: by AGRO005S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id <2Z4Q9DAJ>; Mon, 03 May 1999 09:22:19 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 09:21:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Established revoke? To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1A9@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 t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > Still a sun(ny) day in the Netherlands, but I can't resist. Terrible to have > a discussion like this in front of all those enjoying people. +++ HI Ton: we were both slightly surprised that you chose to lead off on the internet, what might initially have been a private entre nous discussion, but we dutifully followed your lead.+++ No, I was joking, I don't have any problem exposing our doubts. 'They' probably noticed some of this before. > Firstly I agree with Kojak that the Ocho > Rios decision was restricted to declarer (thank you Bill). +++ Kojak and I browsed the laws and agreed this was the case; I may have muddied the water somewhere in the past. It is dummy who transgresses not declarer.+++ That was not my problem. Ocho does say something concerning L43B2, not concerning 61B. So Kaplan's Ocho-decision deals with the declarer and not with defenders. For defender asking, we still just apply L64, 1 or 2 tricks, that was the Forquet-Belladonna case. >But I have to > admit that I might have misinterpreted 'Ocho Rios'. I have made my own > interpretation of 'the two trick penalty applies'. Law 64 doesn't use that > phrase: 'two trick penalty'. It describes the penalty, which, in the number > of tricks, depends on how the play develops. 43B2b refers to 64, so why did > we have this discussion in Ocho Rios? ++++ Discussion? What discussion was that? Kaplan opened up by asking "Do we all agree that.......? Someone said "Yes, I second that....." and no-one demurred. There was immediate agreement without debate. This kind of thing was always apt to happen when we had a guru like Kaplan around. , members of the Committee are commonly making it known to me that now this is no longer the case they will expect discussion before anything fresh is settled. It has been put to me that we in Europe should seek a broader democracy in the Committee's style.++++ This means that you did not interpret what '2 trick penalty' means. Which gives us room to do that now. May I suggest my (and Herman de Wael's) interpretation? >Isn't the situation clear enough? And > then I thought the following: declarer being brought in the situation of > 43B2b has to play a legal card to the trick and takes back his 'revoking' > card (which was not the case for a defender that time). Now applying 64 > completely seems a bit strange: declarer plays a legal card avoiding to win > the trick, and still has to transfer a trick when he later wins a trick with > another card of the same suit. That hardly makes sense. The idea behind the > second trick penalty is that revoker might have played the winning card > following suit, not being able to win another trick with it. I have always > thought that Ocho Rios decided that this trick still has to be transferred, > using the 'abbreviation': the 2-trick penalty applies. But you are saying > now that independent of the way the tricks are won, if declarer makes at > least two tricks he has to transfer two tricks. ++++ What I regret here is that communication was poor. This was before I started writing the minutes for Edgar. I am only vaguely aware of the method of dissemination, but I think it creaked a lot. ++++ >Which by the way means that 64 does not apply at all. ++++ Kojak and I are puzzled by this statement. We think he used Law 64 to define the number of tricks, someone having asked him at some prior time (maybe on what passed then for the internet!) : "Does this mean the one trick penalty or the two trick penalty?" ++++ But law 64 does not define the number of tricks saying 1 or 2. The number depends on the play of the hand. L43B2 refers to 64 and it is possible to apply 64 without any further (Ocho)instruction. So why did you need this Ocho-decision? Saying that there will be a fixed 2-trick penalty makes 64 useless, we don't apply 64 then. I read the Ocho-decision as confirming that 64 is applicable completely, with the possible consequence of a 2 trick penalty. So declarer having AK bare of spades, revoking when spades are asked for, his dummy incorrectly asking him about spades, wins with the A (a losing trick) and wins the K later. It is not obvious that this trick has to be transfered too. I thought Ocho said 'yes' this is the second losing trick. > Please Grattan, on the agenda. Can I wait or do > you want me to inform all my pupils from the last 10 years? ++++ agenda, yes. Your pupils are nearly all now reading this, being so intelligent, and I think enough has been made known until we can publish a further positive statement from the Committee.++++ Kojak here......... AMEN. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 19:26:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 19:26:36 +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 TAA00168 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 19:26:30 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-148-146.uunet.be [194.7.148.146]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00656 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 11:25:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <372D6804.FFF18AA1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 11:10:28 +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: <001401be938c$b94405e0$d1e3f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: > > > By the way, I visited the bridgematch Holland-Belgium this afternoon (108 > boards in two days). We won. Not much, but we won. > And don't say you don't care. > Of course I do. A small loss against past world champions ? Great result ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 23:57:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 23:57:01 +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 XAA00846 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 23:56:52 +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 RAA21845 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 17:07:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15900 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 May 1999 17:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 17:07:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905022107.RAA15900@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Established revoke? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [I'm not sure who wrote this; it wasn't me.] > > A 'heads up player' who > > > understood the laws could have lead to the next trick and established > the > > > revoke, thereby preventing its correction and subsequent creation of a > > > penalty card. [This was from me] > > Not if declarer leaves his card face up while asking. [From Kojak and Gester] > Tampa speaks: to avoid an explosion in Western Florida please > say whether there is a version of the game in which a card played by a > defender and then withdrawn to correct an unestablished revoke is not > a major penalty card? If "no" where's the difference in what you say? > If "yes", what law reference? K & G. Let's start over. West has led and won the trick; East has revoked. South, declarer, asks East about the revoke. East must correct the revoke, which creates a penalty card, which benefits declarer more than the revoke penalty would have. This was the scenario in India. Now go back to the beginning, and consider the "heads-up player" is West. (No doubt his initials are HH.) By leading, he establishes his partner's revoke. Now there is no correction and no penalty card. Sure, there's a revoke penalty, perhaps even two tricks, but the penalty card was worth many more than that. (I think it would have been only a one-trick penalty anyway.) To prevent this, I suggested South leave his own card face up while he asks East about the revoke. Now West's lead is illegal, the revoke is corrected, and South benefits from the penalty card after all. Is it OK now? > Kojak and gester are in agreement that it would be desirable to review > this > whole area of law at an early date. We are flexible on what changes might be > made to improve the operation of the law. ++++ If you really want a suggestion, how about this one: 1) the revoke penalty is two tricks unless fewer are won afterwards 1a) as now, transfer more tricks if needed to restore equity 2) asking an illegal question establishes the revoke, which may no longer be corrected 3) whether defenders may ask each other remains a zonal option This is such a major change it will no doubt have to wait until 2007, but I commend its simplicity to your attention. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 23:57:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 23:57:02 +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 XAA00845 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 23:56:52 +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 RAA21954 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 17:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15941 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 May 1999 17:58:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 17:58:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905022158.RAA15941@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What a mess hand Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Nancy T Dressing > N > T983 > KQ9653 > A43 > W -- E > J76 AK E Deal NS Vul > 87 JT2 E S W N > Q8762 KJT5 1 NT X P X > JT2 A876 2D^* P^ > S 2H 3C all pass > Q542 * announced transfer > A4 ^ bid taken after director rule > 9 > KQ9543 > > Can we get a result on this layout??? Let me try it, and we'll see whether David concurs. This is a good example for Jeff. First of all, we back things up to the point of the wrong ruling. The bidding has gone 1NT-x-2D!, where 2D was intended as natural and interpreted as a transfer. In fact we must back up a little further; West's 2D was made thinking North would be barred, but in fact South should have been barred. That may have made a difference in West's choice. OK, what can happen? Let's consider results starting with the most favorable to NS. 1) EW play some number of hearts, helped along by their own misunderstanding and L16, doubled and down a bunch. 2) NS play a heart part score, doubled and making overtricks. We might consider NS make a heart game, but I don't think there's any real chance they will bid it. Perhaps your bridge judgment is different. 3) NS play a heart part score undoubled, +170. 4) NS play a heart part score with worse play and good defense, +140. 5) North decides to pass 1NTx, +100. 6) W decides to pass instead of bidding 2D and later backs in with 3D. Now there is no misunderstanding, and NS score +50. 7) As 6) but S gets thrown in for -110. 8) NS give terrible defense in 1NTx: club lead, then H-K by N when in with D-A, -380. My analysis was pretty quick, and I wouldn't be surprised if I've missed some possibilities. One thing I haven't missed is a club contract by NS. South is _barred_, and I don't think North is very likely to be bidding clubs! But by all means add other possibilities to my list if you think of them. If asked to rule for real, I would certainly want to consult before deciding. OK, suppose my list is complete. In theory, you would assign probabilities to each outcome. I like to think of things mathematically, but not everybody does. So which outcomes are fairly likely, and which ones are remote? I vote for 1 and 8 remote, and the others fairly likely, but it won't hurt my feelings if someone else's bridge judgment is different. That leaves six possibilities, and I'm willing to call them roughly equal or just take the second most favorable for each side. So NS get +170, EW get -50. What took all the time was the analysis to come up with the possible results. I'm still not sure it is correct. But given the analysis, coming up with the final scores took only a couple of seconds, and I'll bet even David won't object to how I did that. Isn't this fairer to everybody than avg+/avg+? From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 3 23:56:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 May 1999 23:56:55 +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 XAA00840 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 23:56:46 +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 RAA21861 for ; Sun, 2 May 1999 17:17:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15916 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 2 May 1999 17:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 17:17:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905022117.RAA15916@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Established revoke? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > I understand "ask" to mean, posing a question, verbally. I don't think it has to be verbal, and I think one can ask things other than questions (e.g. donations). I'd have said "seeking a response." The silent beggar with his hand out is still asking, isn't he? > Whereas "inquire" is the action of trying to find out. Fair enough, perhaps "seeking information," but not necessarily from any person. So 'ask' and 'inquire' are not exact synonyms in general. However, I think they would have the same meaning in the context of L63B. > Thus, a "questioning shrug" ("huh ?") is an inquiry, yet one > cannot say that it is "asked". I'd be willing to say it is asking; one is seeking a response. It is also inquiring, of course; one is seeking information. I don't think one would rule differently if the word were changed. Do others disagree? From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 01:41:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 01:41:43 +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 BAA03371 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 01:41:36 +1000 Received: from zon.it.geodan.nl ([193.78.133.66]) by juno.it.geodan.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id 983 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 17:41:04 +0200 Received: from geodan.nl ([193.78.133.125]) by zon.it.geodan.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.5) with ESMTP id AAA4966 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 17:41:19 +0200 Message-ID: <372DC30E.1E97C54@geodan.nl> Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 17:38:54 +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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Established revoke? References: <199905022107.RAA15900@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > [I'm not sure who wrote this; it wasn't me.] > > > A 'heads up player' who > > > > understood the laws could have lead to the next trick and established the > > > > revoke, thereby preventing its correction and subsequent creation of a > > > > penalty card. > > [This was from me] > > > Not if declarer leaves his card face up while asking. > > [From Kojak and Gester] > > Tampa speaks: to avoid an explosion in Western Florida please > > say whether there is a version of the game in which a card played by a > > defender and then withdrawn to correct an unestablished revoke is not > > a major penalty card? If "no" where's the difference in what you say? > > If "yes", what law reference? K & G. > > Let's start over. West has led and won the trick; East has revoked. > South, declarer, asks East about the revoke. East must correct the > revoke, which creates a penalty card, which benefits declarer more than > the revoke penalty would have. This was the scenario in India. East must correct the revoke, if he's aware of it (62A). But can he claim he has no clubs even if he has (at least) one? Then the revoke becomes established, but no penalty card appears, and the contract will still go down (even after transfering one or two tricks). After all, he hasn't found a club in his hand the first time, why would he find a club when asked? So is the defender allowed to say: "I haven't followed to this trick, so I don't have clubs", even without looking at his hand? Then he isn't aware of the irregularity (by refusing to check it), and so is not obliged to correct it. [Rest snipped] Sjoerd Schreuder PS: I'm not a director. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 03:08:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 03:08:14 +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 DAA03713 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 03:08:07 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23379; 3 May 99 10:07 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 10:07:22 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9905031007.aa23379@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Something bothered me while I was reading Larry Cohen's account of the World Open Pairs in the latest Bridge World. He mentioned that they have an agreement: "Systemically, that pass of a business redouble says, 'Partner, I have no long suit to run to; you pick your best suit.'" On the actual hand, Cohen was systemically forced to give up a big penalty and take a minus. What bothers me is this: If an opposing pair plays this convention, and they've doubled you and you think you're going for a number, you can avoid a problem by making a business redouble (assuming your system allows it), even if you don't have a legitimate redouble, since their own system won't let them stay there. BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE SYSTEM BEFOREHAND. Certainly, if the opponent makes his conventional pass over the redouble, the passer's partner is required to alert---but that's too late. It looks like we have a situation where those who already know that the opponents play this convention (maybe they've met the opponents before, or they've read in the Bridge World that this pair uses that convention) are in a position to take advantage of their system, by making a tactical redouble---while those who don't know won't be able to. To me, this indicates that there's a problem somewhere. The idea behind full disclosure is that no one should suffer a disadvantage because they don't know the opponents' system; but here we seem to have a case where those who don't know that the opponents play a certain convention, are put at a disadvantage. And those who don't know can't even call the director afterwards to seek redress, because they *won't* redouble, so therefore the convention won't come up, so therefore they still won't know after the hand that the opponents play this convention and they could have done better. It doesn't seem to me that full disclosure is being met. I don't know the answer. In a long match, the pairs can exchange complete system notes beforehand, but this doesn't help for pairs events. Is there a solution, or is this a defect we just have to live with? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 05:05:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 05:05:44 +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 FAA04073 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 05:05:37 +1000 Received: from ip221.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.221]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990503190530.ZQUS2488.fep2@ip221.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 21:05:30 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Established revoke? Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 21:05:31 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3731f377.7023228@post12.tele.dk> References: <199905022107.RAA15900@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199905022107.RAA15900@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2 May 1999 17:07:29 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >If you really want a suggestion, how about this one: >1) the revoke penalty is two tricks unless fewer are won afterwards >1a) as now, transfer more tricks if needed to restore equity >2) asking an illegal question establishes the revoke, which may no > longer be corrected >3) whether defenders may ask each other remains a zonal option Yes, please! Simpler revoke penalty rules - such as these - would be an enormous improvement in the laws. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 06:05:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 06:05:10 +1000 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04203 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 06:05:05 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3932) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 5QYCa07562; Mon, 3 May 1999 16:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7388af5e.245f5b37@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:04:07 EDT Subject: Re: Established revoke? To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/3/99 3:23:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl writes: > This means that you did not interpret what '2 trick penalty' means. Which > gives us room to do that now. May I suggest my (and Herman de Wael's) > interpretation? +++ Officers of the Committee cannot change the current position without Committee discussion. That is very clear from the requests of various Committee members. Kaplan was somehow able to achieve it but we lesser mortals must not expect to behave as he did; for the sake of harmony we need Committee solidarity. I think we should not disturb the current position of any affiliated Zone or NCBO until we can issue a fresh, minuted decision from the Committee. In order to cope with the ever reducing size of the world I am ambitious to set up a private interchange amongst Committee members on the internet to achieve where possible some agreed interim stances where they are needed - but this is something that needs to be discussed also. I would like this on the agenda. As for the Ocho Rios decision, Kaplan made clear the interpretation. It was minuted by Ed Theus as Chairman, submitted to and ratified by the Executive Council and then 'published' (whatever constituted 'publication' in those days). Under your chairmanship we have finally moved to publish to greater effect and the bridge world is the better for it, if only because it clarifies the underlying problems we have to deal with in our search for a world-wide jurisprudence that will be generally accepted. So let's stay together, haul in Kojak and whoever else of the Committee, and keep striving - I am especially cognis(z)ant of the need to find language to express things that is not misunderstood to be abrasive, does not come across sounding arrogant, and which draws people together. As for debates and disagreements, adults do not lose their relationships merely because of healthy and courteous advocacy of differing opinions and no member of the Committee will be anxious on this account. This was Grattan whilst Kojak was at the dentist. Please note that he has teeth.++++ Kojak Here....... Yes, and those teeth are all mine....... From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 06:05:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 06:05:33 +1000 Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA04216 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 06:05:28 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3932) by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pVYCa02444; Mon, 3 May 1999 16:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <238fabac.245f5b38@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:04:08 EDT Subject: Re: Established revoke? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/2/99 5:17:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk writes: > L16? East's question is UI and I believe that absent the question 30%+ of > players would not have noticed the revoke. Obviously the UI argument > could be made in type 1 situations as well but it feels wrong. > +++ In both types of situations there would appear to be advantage taken of "unauthorised information from his partner, as from a ...... question ......... or hesitation" (see Law 73C and note the word "must"; use then if you will Law 84E and maybe a PP). Last evening we were discussing also the need to provide redress if defender A asks defender B when defender B has no such card and has not revoked, but nevertheless receives a message. We concluded 84E and 90 (violation of correct procedure) after breach of 61B was again the Director's route (since 61B specifies no penalty). = from Two at Tampa = +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 06:23:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 06:23:03 +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 GAA04251 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 06:22:56 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3932) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pXYUa20910 for ; Mon, 3 May 1999 16:21:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6f90f1ac.245f5f46@aol.com> Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 16:21:26 EDT Subject: Subject titles 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak here....... In my limited time following the BLML postings I find one item that IMHO would greatly add to the speed in which we can address ourselves to a "thread", and the clarity with which we address the original subject matter. The SUBJECT should be specific, carefully selected, and unique. When we have such a subject title as "Established Revoke?" it is far too broad and leads to postings that have to do with Established Revokes, instead of the meat of the thread which had to do with Law43B2(b) and its crossreference to Law 64. Those who initiate a thread, please pick your Subject with great care. Help the poor souls like me who frequently have to go back through multiple postings to find what the real problem was to begin with. It is particularly difficult to "pick up the thread" if you come in late, and wandering all over the landscape doesn't assist us in being as clear as we imagine ourselves to be. If you want to go off on a tangent, add that to your subject title and it will be of great help. I'm also told that this is far from an original thought on my part - just felt I should get on the horse in midstream. After all our aim is to improve communications and exchange ideas, not obfuscate them. ......... From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 07:28:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 07:28:54 +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 HAA04439 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 07:28:47 +1000 Received: from kooijman (vp213-118.worldonline.nl [195.241.213.118]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA06911; Mon, 3 May 1999 23:28:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005901be93c1$60a43ce0$76d5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: Established revoke? Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 12:57:10 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The only thing I tried to achieve was combining the Ocho Rios decision with something that matches with the laws as I thought to understand them. No mutiny proposed. I join Kojak in his AMEN for the moment. He can use his teeth for the steak. ton +++ Officers of the Committee cannot change the current position without >Committee discussion. That is very clear from the requests of various >Committee members. Kaplan was somehow able to achieve it but we lesser >mortals must not expect to behave as he did; for the sake of harmony we need >Committee solidarity. I think we should not disturb the current position of >any affiliated Zone or NCBO until we can issue a fresh, minuted decision from >the Committee. In order to cope with the ever reducing size of the world I am >ambitious to set up a private interchange amongst Committee members on the >internet to achieve where possible some agreed interim stances where they >are needed - but this is something that needs to be discussed also. I would >like this on the agenda. > As for the Ocho Rios decision, Kaplan made clear the >interpretation. It was minuted by Ed Theus as Chairman, submitted to and >ratified by the Executive Council and then 'published' (whatever constituted >'publication' in those days). Under your chairmanship we have finally moved >to publish to greater effect and the bridge world is the better for it, if >only because it clarifies the underlying problems we have to deal with in our >search for a world-wide jurisprudence that will be generally accepted. So >let's stay together, haul in Kojak and whoever else of the Committee, and >keep striving - I am especially cognis(z)ant of the need to find language to >express things that is not misunderstood to be abrasive, does not come across >sounding arrogant, and which draws people together. As for debates and >disagreements, adults do not lose their relationships merely because of >healthy and courteous advocacy of differing opinions and no member of the >Committee will be anxious on this account. > This was Grattan whilst Kojak was at the dentist. Please note >that he has teeth.++++ > >Kojak Here....... Yes, and those teeth are all mine....... > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 08:34:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 08:34:50 +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 IAA04567 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 08:34:44 +1000 Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 08:34:44 +1000 Received: (qmail 7215 invoked from network); 3 May 1999 22:34:35 -0000 Received: from pm02-098.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.98) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 3 May 1999 22:34:35 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990503183358.189f9b16@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Swedish LK ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First the facts of the deal Dealer: South vul: NS scoring: teams/imps North A2 West North East South Q983 -- -- -- 1He T9764 pass 2He ..pass pass Q9 2Sp 3He 3Sp pass pass pass West East Q9875 KJ64 K54 7 Q5 J83 ...pass EW admits some tempobreak J82 AK643 but not even close to South what NS claims it to be T3 AJT62 AK2 T75 Result: 3sp made 5 TD's ruling TD is called to the table when West bids 2sp and orders bidding and play to go on. the play ends with EW making 5 in 3sp. TD is called back to the Table and rules the contract back to 2he making 2 +110 for NS on basis of UI and that pass is a LA in that position. EW appeals obviously :) since otherwise i wouldnt have this story :) AC opinions and ruling NS's opinions on the situation is that East hestitated and wanted to object towards the 2sp bid they thnk is based on UI. East also had an in our opinion clearcut Takeout X of 2he. EW's opinions East admits a slight tempo break but while West is saying he havnt noticed anything unusual and unvul vs vul where the bidding is dying out in 2he pd must have some cards and it cant be rite to leave opps in 2he AC's ruling East is from the bidding marked with a hand close too an opening hand based on the fact that NS are stopping in 2He, and most likely 2 or less hearts, If east have Kxx, xx, Kxx KQxxx East do not have any good bid on those cards and yet EW should be competing on the hand AC rules that even if there have been a tempo break west have the cards for his 2sp bid and overturns the TD's ruling with letting 3sp+5 +200 in again. NS are appealing this ruling to the National LawCommision and there ruling are as follows. LC's final ruling on the case. LK rules that NS wins 4 imps on the board and that EW loses 6 imps on the board if this cant determine the matchresult NS are to win 5 imps on the board in question. LK rules as TD but with a 2 imp penalty for NS on the bad defense in 3sp End of facts. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 09:21:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA04653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 09:21:46 +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 JAA04648 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 09:21:41 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10eS1l-0006x0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 May 1999 01:21:33 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990504011813.00ac05d0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 01:18:13 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen 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 21:44 01-05-99 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 4/27/99 6:45:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: > >> And further and this is the complexity, IMO, once play ceases dummy is >> >no longer dummy, > Then i still have a slight problem. art. 42/3 are in chapter VI, the play. the definition of play is :the period during which the cards are played. Unless otherwise stated, i may presume that the articles namend in above mentioned chapter only refer to the definition (wich the exceptions mentioned in the according articles), ore am i wrong. So, i tend to believe that when play has ceased, art. 42/43 is no longer in effect. But, then again i am not sure. Perhaps someone more able can sort this out. If i am right, then indeed dummy ceases to be dummy, unless otherwise stated. BTW can TD's get more money from their SO's if they have a degree in law school?? regards, anton >++++ Here in Tampa we have picked up a bunch of postings on this thread. Far >too much to attempt to read in a day at the console. And no doubt this error >has been picked up. But just in case.... > Dummy is declarer's partner and becomes so when the opening lead is >faced. At no point in the laws is this designation and status said to cease. >For all time on this particular hand he is then dummy after the opening lead >is faced. Even in the appeal committee. > For corroboration of this statement see Law 9A2(b)(i) which says >that "dummy" may do something "after play of the hand is concluded". This >clearly designates the player who does it to be "dummy" still. Gester (with >a nod from Kojak). > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 4 21:50:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 21:50:09 +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 VAA07324 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 21:50:02 +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 HAA29096 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 07:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990504075115.0068b098@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 07:51:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Swedish LK ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19990503183358.189f9b16@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:34 AM 5/4/99 +1000, Claire wrote: >LC's final ruling on the case. > >LK rules that NS wins 4 imps on the board and that EW loses 6 imps on the >board >if this cant determine the matchresult NS are to win 5 imps on the board in >question. LK rules as TD but with a 2 imp penalty for NS on the bad defense >in 3sp Excuse me? A 2 IMP penalty for bad defense? Where on Earth did this LC find anything in the Laws to justify that? 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 May 4 22:26:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 May 1999 22:26:30 +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 WAA07519 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 22:26:23 +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 NAA13637 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 13:26:19 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA22731 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 13:26:14 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 04 May 1999 12:26:13 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA01968 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 May 1999 13:26:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:26:10 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199905041226.NAA01968@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Something bothered me while I was reading Larry Cohen's account of the > World Open Pairs in the latest Bridge World. He mentioned that they > have an agreement: "Systemically, that pass of a business redouble > says, 'Partner, I have no long suit to run to; you pick your best > suit.'" On the actual hand, Cohen was systemically forced to give up > a big penalty and take a minus. > > What bothers me is this: If an opposing pair plays this convention, > and they've doubled you and you think you're going for a number, you > can avoid a problem by making a business redouble (assuming your > system allows it), even if you don't have a legitimate redouble, since > their own system won't let them stay there. BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW > ABOUT THE SYSTEM BEFOREHAND. Certainly, if the opponent makes his > conventional pass over the redouble, the passer's partner is required > to alert---but that's too late. Clearly this agreement is more effective without opponents knowing how to take advantage. The EBU's larger convention card (EBU20A) has a half the front cover devoted to "ASPECTS OF SYSTEM WHICH OPPONENTS SHOULD NOTE". This is not just for unusual oppening bids and overcalls but also unusual agreements later in the auction (especially, in competitive auctions). As an example of agreements which should be listed in this section, the Orange Book gives a double of a cue bid which suggests not leading the suit doubled. I think conventional passes of redoubles should be listed here as well. This would give some protection to the opponents in the situation above. BTW, does anyone have a feel for how common are conventional passes of redoubles. Some people like to play all passes of redoubles show a penalty pass of partner's double (except 1suit-X-XX-P); and some play that a pass is take-out with no preference when it is "obvious" that passer can not have a penalty pass. 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 May 5 00:42:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 00:42:12 +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 AAA10529 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 00:42:05 +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 JAA23168 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 May 1999 09:42:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DGJR00J Tue, 04 May 99 09:34:51 Message-ID: <9905040934.0DGJR00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 04 May 99 09:34:51 Subject: FULL DISCLOSU To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It sounds like with this agreement both the double and the pass are always tempo sensitive in the highest order. Roger Pewick B>Something bothered me while I was reading Larry Cohen's account of the B>World Open Pairs in the latest Bridge World. He mentioned that they B>have an agreement: "Systemically, that pass of a business redouble B>says, 'Partner, I have no long suit to run to; you pick your best B>suit.'" On the actual hand, Cohen was systemically forced to give up B>a big penalty and take a minus. B>What bothers me is this: If an opposing pair plays this convention, B>and they've doubled you and you think you're going for a number, you B>can avoid a problem by making a business redouble (assuming your B>system allows it), even if you don't have a legitimate redouble, since B>their own system won't let them stay there. BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW B>ABOUT THE SYSTEM BEFOREHAND. Certainly, if the opponent makes his B>conventional pass over the redouble, the passer's partner is required B>to alert---but that's too late. B>It looks like we have a situation where those who already know that B>the opponents play this convention (maybe they've met the opponents B>before, or they've read in the Bridge World that this pair uses that B>convention) are in a position to take advantage of their system, by B>making a tactical redouble---while those who don't know won't be able B>to. To me, this indicates that there's a problem somewhere. The idea B>behind full disclosure is that no one should suffer a disadvantage B>because they don't know the opponents' system; but here we seem to B>have a case where those who don't know that the opponents play a B>certain convention, are put at a disadvantage. And those who don't B>know can't even call the director afterwards to seek redress, because B>they *won't* redouble, so therefore the convention won't come up, so B>therefore they still won't know after the hand that the opponents play B>this convention and they could have done better. It doesn't seem to B>me that full disclosure is being met. B>I don't know the answer. In a long match, the pairs can exchange B>complete system notes beforehand, but this doesn't help for pairs B>events. Is there a solution, or is this a defect we just have to live B>with? B> -- Adam B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 01:16:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 01:16:48 +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 BAA10673 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 01:16:39 +1000 Received: from ip54.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.54]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990504151632.BFNN15766.fep4@ip54.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 17:16:32 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Swedish LK ruling Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:16:32 GMT Message-ID: <37960cdf.17471372@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.16.19990503183358.189f9b16@pop3.iag.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19990503183358.189f9b16@pop3.iag.net> 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 Tue, 4 May 1999 08:34:44 +1000 skrev Robert Nordgren: >East is from the bidding marked with a hand close too an opening hand based >on the fact that NS are stopping in 2He, and most likely 2 or less hearts, >If east have Kxx, xx, Kxx KQxxx East do not have any good bid on those >cards and yet EW should be competing on the hand This seems to me a very sensible reason not to change the original board - *if* W presented it. I don't think that EW should benefit from the fact that AC is able to cook up an explanation for their bidding. The final verdict seems strange to me, but that is more an "impression" than a qualified statement. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (only in Danish) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 01:19:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 01:19:31 +1000 Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA10705 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 01:19:25 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14416) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id dUZNa20661; Tue, 4 May 1999 11:17:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20ad7840.24606996@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:17:42 EDT Subject: Re: Swedish LK ruling To: elandau@cais.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/4/99 7:54:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > Excuse me? A 2 IMP penalty for bad defense? Where on Earth did this LC > find anything in the Laws to justify that? > +++++ Absolutely nothing in the Laws that I have heard of. Also, what is this idea that the equity on the hand alters if the match is tied following your first judgement? gester (still in Tampa until Thursday afternoon) +++++ Kojak here..... From the original posting almost the entire procedure sounds insane to me. There HAS to be something more to it than we now have! If not, I cry for the game..... From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 01:20:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA10726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 01:20:04 +1000 Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA10720 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 01:19:58 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14416) by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fWRAa17021; Tue, 4 May 1999 11:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <428d91b6.24606995@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:17:41 EDT Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact To: rmb1@cise.npl.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/4/99 8:28:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes: > I think conventional passes of redoubles should be > listed here as well. This would give some protection to the opponents > in the situation abov ++++ When Kojak and I read this item we simply said "it has got to be on the CC, listed in an area drawing special attention to things". We did not comment on the internet because we expect to see a chorus all saying the same thing. I do not think the decision is even close and the Director should give redress, allowing to the full in favour of the non-offenders any margin of doubt as to the outcome of the hand where they have not taken advantage of opponents conventional understanding because it was not disclosed. We confidently anticipate that Mr Cohen, an eminently correct player, will not have overlooked the duty to give prior disclosure of the method. gester ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 03:14:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 03:14:52 +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 DAA11255 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 03:14:46 +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 NAA11545 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 13:14:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:14:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905041714.NAA12687@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19990504075115.0068b098@pop.cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Tue, 04 May 1999 07:51:15 -0400) Subject: Re: Swedish LK ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > At 08:34 AM 5/4/99 +1000, Claire wrote: >> LC's final ruling on the case. >> >> LK rules that NS wins 4 imps on the board and that EW loses 6 imps on the >> board >> if this cant determine the matchresult NS are to win 5 imps on the board in >> question. LK rules as TD but with a 2 imp penalty for NS on the bad defense >> in 3sp > Excuse me? A 2 IMP penalty for bad defense? Where on Earth did this LC > find anything in the Laws to justify that? It's not a penalty for bad defense, but an attempt to redress for only the damage caused by the infraction. It is common to make such an adjustment when the infraction did not cause damage at all but the play did; if E-W may have used UI to bid 4S over 4H, with neither contract makable, but N-S misdefend badly to allow 4S to make, then the AC might rule that N-S were not damaged and not adjust the N-S score. However, I can't see a justification for the situation in which the infraction caused damage and the bad play caused additional damage. The score should be adjusted to "the most favorable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred", and that score does not depend on the defense in a different contract. I could see a justification for this type of adjustment if the bad play affected the likely result. For example, if E-W may have used UI to double a 4S contract, and South miscounts trumps to go down two vulnerable rather than down one, the score could be adjusted from -500 to -200, because it is not likely that this South would have scored -100 with no double even if other Souths would. -- 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 May 5 04:22:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 04:22:04 +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 EAA11538 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 04:21:58 +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 LAA12778 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 11:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003a01be965a$f743eec0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199905041226.NAA01968@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:21:38 -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 Robin Barker wrote: Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Something bothered me while I was reading Larry Cohen's account of the > > World Open Pairs in the latest Bridge World. He mentioned that they > > have an agreement: "Systemically, that pass of a business redouble > > says, 'Partner, I have no long suit to run to; you pick your best > > suit.'" On the actual hand, Cohen was systemically forced to give up > > a big penalty and take a minus. > > > > What bothers me is this: If an opposing pair plays this convention, > > and they've doubled you and you think you're going for a number, you > > can avoid a problem by making a business redouble (assuming your > > system allows it), even if you don't have a legitimate redouble, since > > their own system won't let them stay there. BUT YOU HAVE TO KNOW > > ABOUT THE SYSTEM BEFOREHAND. Certainly, if the opponent makes his > > conventional pass over the redouble, the passer's partner is required > > to alert---but that's too late. > > Clearly this agreement is more effective without opponents knowing how > to take advantage. > > The EBU's larger convention card (EBU20A) has a half the front cover > devoted to "ASPECTS OF SYSTEM WHICH OPPONENTS SHOULD NOTE". This is > not just for unusual oppening bids and overcalls but also unusual > agreements later in the auction (especially, in competitive auctions). > > As an example of agreements which should be listed in this section, the > Orange Book gives a double of a cue bid which suggests not leading the > suit doubled. I think conventional passes of redoubles should be > listed here as well. This would give some protection to the opponents > in the situation above. > > BTW, does anyone have a feel for how common are conventional passes of > redoubles. Some people like to play all passes of redoubles show a > penalty pass of partner's double (except 1suit-X-XX-P); and some play > that a pass is take-out with no preference when it is "obvious" that > passer can not have a penalty pass. > The all-time standard meaning for a pass over an opposing redouble in the simple auction 1x-Dbl-Rdbl is that a pass does not indicate a desire to play 1x redoubled. Yes, it's a convention, but about on the same level of disclosure requirement as a simple takeout double. While even some expert partnerships play that a pass is natural (e.g., Evan Bailey and John Strauch, locally), that meaning must be Alerted in ACBL-land. There is no requirement to put either meaning on the convention card. I have never heard of anyone's perpetrating a psychic natural redouble of a takeout double with a bad hand and short trumps, knowing the doubler almost certainly won't pass, and can't imagine its being done. Here's the way I put it on my recap of the ACBL Alert Procedure, which has been okayed by ACBL headquarters: ALERT: "A pass over an opposing redouble of a takeout or negative double, if the pass conveys a desire to play the redoubled contract." However, there are situations in which passing a redouble would normally be taken as natural, wanting to play the redoubled contract. Certainly if the redouble is S. O. S., a pass is natural. Accordingly, I should have put the word "natural" before "redouble" in that Alert instruction, and will do so next time I revise the recap. My feeling is that this is sufficient, but I would very much like to see opinions to the contrary. I do not consider that "non-penalty" is synonymous with "takeout," so passing over a redouble of a "non-penalty" (e.g., snapdragon) double should be Alerted if the pass is conventional (i.e., wanting partner to bid). I do not see the need for disclosing this partnership agreement in advance, but am willing to be persuaded if convincing examples can be provided to show that advance disclosure could benefit the doubler's LHO. Examples, not words. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 04:53:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 04:53:05 +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 EAA11705 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 04:52:58 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa11293; 4 May 99 11:52 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 May 1999 11:21:38 PDT." <003a01be965a$f743eec0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 11:52:18 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9905041152.aa11293@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > I have never heard of anyone's perpetrating a psychic > natural redouble of a takeout double with a bad hand and short trumps, > knowing the doubler almost certainly won't pass, and can't imagine its > being done. It happened at the NAOP in Vancouver, when John Adams redoubled 1H (double) with Q972 --- Q9872 K965. Maybe you don't consider this a "bad hand", but it probably doesn't meet most people's requirements for a standard redouble. Anyway, it had the desired effect of getting the opponents to play the hand going down, instead of going down in 1Hx (advancer had 6 good hearts and would have passed eagerly). I don't know if Mr. Adams would have tried the same with, say, Q972 --- J9872 J965, but it's certainly conceivable, and it probably would have worked. (The main risk is that partner will think you have more defense and double their contract, but 1Sx or 2Cx making is better than -300. Assuming *they* don't redouble!) However, had Adams happened to be playing against someone who played that a advancer's pass of a redouble was for business, and not known about this beforehand, he wouldn't have been a happy man. P.S. I bid 1S with the above cards, with a less successful outcome than Adams'. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 05:11:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 05:11:40 +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 FAA11786 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 05:11:31 +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 PAA18272 for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 15:11:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA17566 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 May 1999 15:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 15:11:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905041911.PAA17566@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > However, had Adams happened to be playing against someone who played > that a advancer's pass of a redouble was for business, and not known > about this beforehand, he wouldn't have been a happy man. Great example! Once partnership agreement is involved, and not just a spontaneous decision, we are back into the whole "merry-go-round" problem. Presumably a redouble like Adams' (if there were an agreement), would have to be explained as "either a normal strong hand, or a weaker hand with short hearts." Then the opposing pair should, in theory, have a chance to adopt a new agreement about passing the redouble. Another example is "Barry Crane doubles" of a passed-around 2NT opening. If I know that one of Mr. Crane's disciples is sitting on my left, I can pass instead of making my normal 3NT raise. But if the disciple knows I do this, he can pass instead of doubling. Another example is Eric Kokish's (?) psychic 1NT opening against the French, who had no way to make a penalty double stick. A psych is fine, but I'm sure they French would have made a different agreement if very weak 1NT bids were to become common. I am not even sure what kind of solution we would like. What do we wish to accomplish? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 05:55:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 05:55:49 +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 FAA12014 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 05:55:22 +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 <19990504195509.BZFL6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 12:55:09 -0700 Message-ID: <372F51BE.59AC2089@home.com> Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:59:58 -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: Swedish LK ruling References: <3.0.16.19990503183358.189f9b16@pop3.iag.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: > > First the facts of the deal > > Dealer: South > vul: NS > scoring: teams/imps > > North > A2 West North East South > Q983 -- -- -- 1He > T9764 pass 2He ..pass pass > Q9 2Sp 3He 3Sp pass > pass pass > West East > Q9875 KJ64 > K54 7 > Q5 J83 ...pass EW admits some tempobreak > J82 AK643 but not even close to > South what NS claims it to be > T3 > AJT62 > AK2 > T75 > > Result: 3sp made 5 > > TD's ruling > > TD is called to the table when West bids 2sp and orders bidding and play to > go on. the play ends with EW making 5 in 3sp. > > TD is called back to the Table and rules the contract back to 2he making 2 > +110 for NS on basis of UI and that pass is a LA in that position. > > NS's opinions on the situation is that East hestitated and wanted to > object towards the 2sp bid they thnk is based on UI. East also had an in > our opinion clearcut Takeout X of 2he. > > EW's opinions East admits a slight tempo break but while West is saying > he havnt noticed anything unusual and unvul vs vul where the bidding is > dying out in 2he pd must have some cards and it cant be rite to leave opps > in 2he Of course it *can* be right, particularly if pard has an in tempo pass! This is IMPs, not MPs. > AC's ruling > > East is from the bidding marked with a hand close too an opening hand based > on the fact that NS are stopping in 2He, and most likely 2 or less hearts, *marked with* is too strong. Why can't N and S each be max for their actions, leaving E with abt 8 hcp? Why can't E have a 2254-pattern? Because of the tempo, that's why! > If east have Kxx, xx, Kxx KQxxx East do not have any good bid on those > cards and yet EW should be competing on the hand > > AC rules that even if there have been a tempo break west have the cards for > his 2sp bid Horrible AC argumentation (if this write-up correctly reflects reality). Whether W "has his bid" or not is not the test. Was Pass an LA? Of course it was, especially at IMPs. Did the slow pass suggest action over pass? Of course it did. *The tempo* "marked" E with "close to an opening hand", whereas *the bidding* itself merely "suggested" it. > LC's final ruling on the case. > > LK rules that NS wins 4 imps on the board and that EW loses 6 imps on the > board > if this cant determine the matchresult NS are to win 5 imps on the board in > question. LK rules as TD but with a 2 imp penalty for NS on the bad defense > in 3sp > > End of facts. Are these really "facts" of the LC's reasoning, or a paraphrasing? I'd be very surprised if knowledgable people like Hallen et al would contrive a ruling this way. There could have been a determination of the NS score under L12C3 (although I'd personally rule NS +110/EW -110). What seems completely impossible is the "tie-breaker" part of the ruling (or did they really say that NS are awarded +4.4 imp?). From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 07:04:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 07:04:21 +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 HAA12340 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 07:04:14 +1000 Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 07:04:14 +1000 Received: (qmail 31974 invoked from network); 4 May 1999 21:04:02 -0000 Received: from pm02-068.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.68) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 4 May 1999 21:04:02 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990504170327.34873b88@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: Swedish LK ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> LC's final ruling on the case. >> >> LK rules that NS wins 4 imps on the board and that EW loses 6 imps on the >> board >> if this cant determine the matchresult NS are to win 5 imps on the board in >> question. LK rules as TD but with a 2 imp penalty for NS on the bad defense >> in 3sp >> >> End of facts. > >Are these really "facts" of the LC's reasoning, or a paraphrasing? I'd >be very surprised if knowledgable people like Hallen et al would >contrive a ruling this way. There could have been a determination of the >NS score under L12C3 (although I'd personally rule NS +110/EW -110). >What seems completely impossible is the "tie-breaker" part of the ruling >(or did they really say that NS are awarded +4.4 imp?). The tiebreaker part is in there, the original final ruling is posted on the Swedish law committes homepage as case 843 the committes ruling http://www.bridgefederation.se/compete/lagkom/lk843x.htm and the case http://www.bridgefederation.se/compete/lagkom/lk843.htm Rulingthe contract back to 2he making 2 looks perfectly normal in the picture of UI but what i dont understand is the tiebreaker ruling in which NS are given a primary +4 imp and EW a primary -6 imps, in other words NS +110 with a 2 imp deduction for the bad defense they did in a contract that have been ruled illegal. And in case this ruling makes the match score to tie the NS are awarded +5 imp on the board is the way i can understand the ruling. Robert > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 08:01:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 08:01:14 +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 IAA12586 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 08:01:08 +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 <19990504220052.DJGI6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 15:00:52 -0700 Message-ID: <372F6F35.CEF8A639@home.com> Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:05:41 -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: Swedish LK ruling References: <3.0.16.19990504170327.34873b88@pop3.iag.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: > The tiebreaker part is in there, the original final ruling is posted on the > Swedish law committes homepage as case 843 > the committes ruling > http://www.bridgefederation.se/compete/lagkom/lk843x.htm > and the case > http://www.bridgefederation.se/compete/lagkom/lk843.htm > > Rulingthe contract back to 2he making 2 looks perfectly normal in the > picture of UI > > but what i dont understand is the tiebreaker ruling in which NS are given a > primary +4 imp and EW a primary -6 imps, in other words NS +110 with a 2 > imp deduction for the bad defense they did in a contract that have been > ruled illegal. > > And in case this ruling makes the match score to tie the NS are awarded +5 > imp on the board is the way i can understand the ruling. I went to look, and indeed the LC's published ruling is as short as described. It would be interesting to know the actual detailed deliberations. I'll try to ask. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 09:10:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 09:10:14 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA12916 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 09:10:05 +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 10eoK0-000I6q-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 May 1999 23:09:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 23:49:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Established revoke? References: <7388af5e.245f5b37@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <7388af5e.245f5b37@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >+++ Officers of the Committee cannot change the current position without >Committee discussion. That is very clear from the requests of various >Committee members. Kaplan was somehow able to achieve it but we lesser >mortals must not expect to behave as he did; for the sake of harmony we need >Committee solidarity. I think we should not disturb the current position of >any affiliated Zone or NCBO until we can issue a fresh, minuted decision from >the Committee. In order to cope with the ever reducing size of the world I am >ambitious to set up a private interchange amongst Committee members on the >internet to achieve where possible some agreed interim stances where they >are needed - but this is something that needs to be discussed also. I would >like this on the agenda. > As for the Ocho Rios decision, Kaplan made clear the >interpretation. It was minuted by Ed Theus as Chairman, submitted to and >ratified by the Executive Council and then 'published' (whatever constituted >'publication' in those days). Under your chairmanship we have finally moved >to publish to greater effect and the bridge world is the better for it, if >only because it clarifies the underlying problems we have to deal with in our >search for a world-wide jurisprudence that will be generally accepted. So >let's stay together, haul in Kojak and whoever else of the Committee, and >keep striving - I am especially cognis(z)ant of the need to find language to >express things that is not misunderstood to be abrasive, does not come across >sounding arrogant, and which draws people together. As for debates and >disagreements, adults do not lose their relationships merely because of >healthy and courteous advocacy of differing opinions and no member of the >Committee will be anxious on this account. > This was Grattan whilst Kojak was at the dentist. Please note >that he has teeth.++++ > >Kojak Here....... Yes, and those teeth are all mine....... Perhaps it is time we got this straight for mere mortals like myself. Interpretations from Lille: No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law that the reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law 64 means the two trick penalty. Are you suggesting that when L64 tells us the penalty is one trick that this minute means that one means two? -- 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 May 5 09:10:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 09:10:05 +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 JAA12902 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 09:09:57 +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 10eoJw-000I6q-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 May 1999 23:09:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 16:02:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: One more question References: <372A2D22.E2825976@pinehurst.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Nancy T Dressing wrote: > >> Next day, local dupe. After the game, an E/W pair examining their >> summary note that they had bid 3 D on a board and made 5 for 150 the >> director had given them 110. The director scored from the traveller >> which showed 3D for 110 West stated that she had played the hand and >> with a cross ruff made 5. The North/South pair said she made three, >> both E\W had 150 written on their private score and N/S no longer had >> their score card.. The board in question had been used in a morning >> bridge class and no longer existed. The proper score would put E/W in >> first place! (different director! whew!) Who do you believe and what >> do you do? Bridge in Pinehurst is always challenging! > >Score stands. It is impossible to find out what really happened on the >board and the next day is well beyond the 30 minutes limit from L79C. So, >EW may be right, but it's too late to do anything about it. If the correction period is thirty minutes, ie the club has not decreed otherwise, then this is certainly so. It would be certainly so even if everyone agreed it was eleven tricks, being out of time. Suppose the club makes the correction period up to the start of next week's duplicate [quite a sensible arrangement], what then? Score stands anyway. It would be in time to change it under L79C [though we would have to read L79B carefully!] but when people bring something late and disagreed then it is sensible to let what is written stand. -- 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 May 5 09:10:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 09:10:05 +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 JAA12903 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 09:09:57 +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 10eoJw-000I6r-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 May 1999 23:09:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 23:07:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: David Martin MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin has gone off-line. His email facility was withdrawn because of his job. He expects this to be only temporary, and will post here as soon as he has arranged a new email facility. -- 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 May 5 09:10:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 09:10:13 +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 JAA12913 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 09:10:03 +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 10eoK0-0000R8-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 May 1999 23:09:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 23:45:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Subject titles References: <6f90f1ac.245f5f46@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <6f90f1ac.245f5f46@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Kojak here....... >In my limited time following the BLML postings I find one item that IMHO >would greatly add to the speed in which we can address ourselves to a >"thread", and the clarity with which we address the original subject matter. >The SUBJECT should be specific, carefully selected, and unique. When we have >such a subject title as "Established Revoke?" it is far too broad and leads >to postings that have to do with Established Revokes, instead of the meat of >the thread which had to do with Law43B2(b) and its crossreference to Law 64. >Those who initiate a thread, please pick your Subject with great care. Help >the poor souls like me who frequently have to go back through multiple >postings to find what the real problem was to begin with. It is particularly >difficult to "pick up the thread" if you come in late, and wandering all over >the landscape doesn't assist us in being as clear as we imagine ourselves to >be. If you want to go off on a tangent, add that to your subject title and >it will be of great help. I'm also told that this is far from an original >thought on my part - just felt I should get on the horse in midstream. After >all our aim is to improve communications and exchange ideas, not obfuscate >them. ......... Hmmm. I am glad you told us this was written by Kojak and not Grattan. It would never have occurred to me that anyone but Grattan would use the word "obfuscate". :))) While I am in total agreement over the use of Subject Titles, it would also be a great help if people would "reply to" the relevant postings. Not only does this keep the subject Titles unchanged, but also it means that articles tend to get read in the correct order. The current thread "Established Revoke" is very interesting but the logic is terribly hard to follow because replies appear before questions, and it is in a strange disorder. I know some of you do not have software that threads, so it is difficult to realise how important this is. It would be a very good idea to get threading software if possible: you will find it much easier. -- 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 May 5 12:08:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 12:08:58 +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 MAA13834 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 12:08:50 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3700) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vLTJa16058; Tue, 4 May 1999 22:06:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <814cbcca.24610151@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 22:05:05 EDT Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/4/99 3:14:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > I am not even sure what kind of solution we would like. What do we > wish to accomplish? ++++ (1) Previous and full disclosure of legal partnership agreements , explicit or implicit. (2) As regulating authorities may desire, controls upon the use of conventions. The Tampa Boys ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 12:10:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 12:10:23 +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 MAA13850 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 12:10:17 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3700) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 9YOJa20904; Tue, 4 May 1999 22:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7206082a.24610152@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 22:05:06 EDT Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact To: adam@flash.irvine.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/4/99 2:54:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@flash.irvine.com writes: > it had the desired effect of getting > the opponents to play the hand going down, instead of going down in > 1Hx (advancer had 6 good hearts and would have passed eagerly +++ In partnerships where I lead the style adopted it has (since 1953 - i.e. since I switched from rubber to duplicate) been my preference to bid over the redouble exactly as if it had not occurred, save for any jump bid being up to strength ~Grattan~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 16:03:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA14200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 16:03:23 +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 QAA14195 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 16:03:15 +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 <19990505060258.JBXW6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 4 May 1999 23:02:58 -0700 Message-ID: <372FE033.2CDE9FB4@home.com> Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 23:07:47 -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: David Martin References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > David Martin has gone off-line. His email facility was withdrawn > because of his job. He expects this to be only temporary, and will post > here as soon as he has arranged a new email facility. Ain't that typical - the one guy who normally agrees with me gets cut off. I smell a conspiracy here! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 5 22:02:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 May 1999 22:02:13 +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 WAA14883 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 22:02:02 +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 IAA10710 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 08:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990505080254.006e2680@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 08:02:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Swedish LK ruling In-Reply-To: <199905041714.NAA12687@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19990504075115.0068b098@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:14 PM 5/4/99 -0400, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes: > >> At 08:34 AM 5/4/99 +1000, Claire wrote: > >>> LC's final ruling on the case. >>> >>> LK rules that NS wins 4 imps on the board and that EW loses 6 imps on the >>> board >>> if this cant determine the matchresult NS are to win 5 imps on the board in >>> question. LK rules as TD but with a 2 imp penalty for NS on the bad defense >>> in 3sp > >> Excuse me? A 2 IMP penalty for bad defense? Where on Earth did this LC >> find anything in the Laws to justify that? > >It's not a penalty for bad defense, but an attempt to redress for only >the damage caused by the infraction. > >It is common to make such an adjustment when the infraction did not >cause damage at all but the play did; if E-W may have used UI to bid 4S >over 4H, with neither contract makable, but N-S misdefend badly to allow >4S to make, then the AC might rule that N-S were not damaged and not >adjust the N-S score. > >However, I can't see a justification for the situation in which the >infraction caused damage and the bad play caused additional damage. The >score should be adjusted to "the most favorable result that was likely >had the infraction not occurred", and that score does not depend on the >defense in a different contract. > >I could see a justification for this type of adjustment if the bad play >affected the likely result. For example, if E-W may have used UI to >double a 4S contract, and South miscounts trumps to go down two >vulnerable rather than down one, the score could be adjusted from -500 >to -200, because it is not likely that this South would have scored -100 >with no double even if other Souths would. In the above scenario, E-W should indeed get -200. And N-S should get +200. Bad defense can affect the adjusted result -- no quarrel there -- but unless we judge the defense to be "wild, irrational or gambling" it should not affect the result for one side only. 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 May 6 00:30:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 00:30:31 +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 AAA17561 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 00:30:26 +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 10f2gl-000JfV-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 May 1999 14:30:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 15:21:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: David Martin In-Reply-To: <372FE033.2CDE9FB4@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <372FE033.2CDE9FB4@home.com>, Jan Kamras writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> David Martin has gone off-line. His email facility was withdrawn >> because of his job. He expects this to be only temporary, and will post >> here as soon as he has arranged a new email facility. > >Ain't that typical - the one guy who normally agrees with me gets cut >off. I smell a conspiracy here! :-) Now all we have to do is separate Jan from his keyboard :))))) -- 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 May 6 00:52:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 00:52:50 +1000 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17618 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 00:52:43 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (322) by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qHRRa16144; Wed, 5 May 1999 10:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <972dc6e8.2461b506@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:51:50 EDT Subject: Re: Subject titles - changes by addition. 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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/4/99 7:14:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > While I am in total agreement over the use of Subject Titles, it would > also be a great help if people would "reply to" the relevant postings. > Not only does this keep the subject Titles unchanged, but also it means > that articles tend to get read in the correct order. The current thread > "Established Revoke" is very interesting but the logic is terribly hard > to follow because replies appear before questions, and it is in a > strange disorder. > > I know some of you do not have software that threads, so it is > difficult to realise how important this is. It would be a very good > idea to get threading software if possible: you will find it much > easier +++++ These messages are good ones. But it does appear they have to be repeated at monthly intervals. I think it works well if a related but tangental obfuscation, David!, is marked with a change of title simply adding a phrase. This way when I sort my receipts to subject they are distinct but adjacent because of the alphabetical consecutiveness. gester +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 6 00:54:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 00:54:37 +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 AAA17636 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 00:54:31 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (322) by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qHSBa24056; Wed, 5 May 1999 10:52:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:52:15 EDT Subject: Re: Established revoke? 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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/4/99 7:14:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > Interpretations from Lille: > No change is to be made in the interpretation of Law that the > reference in Law 43B2b to the penalty in Law 64 means the two > trick penalty. > > Are you suggesting that when L64 tells us the penalty is one trick > that this minute means that one means two? ++++ We will be straightening out the WBFLC's forthcoming intention when next we get together. This might be in September, or may have to wait longer. The point does not appear to have been picked up that the Ocho Rios decision referred to the "two trick penalty" in Law 64 and not to the generality of Law 64; it used the description of the two trick penalty in Law 64 to describe what would happen under 43B2(b). It made no reference to the one trick penalty in Law 64 nor to the statement in that Law of when a penalty would apply. Kojak and Gester have sorted through this one at some detail. And if you have followed the exchanges with Ton you will have noted Gester's suggestion that no-one's current method of applying 43B2(b) should be disturbed until the WBFLC issues fresh guidance. A determined effort is under way to harmonise procedures and in due course the results, if any, will be made known.++++ [Read, amended and agreed by both of us] From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 6 02:45:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 02:45:35 +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 CAA18124 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 02:45:28 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (353) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id iZIPa04814; Wed, 5 May 1999 12:40:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <57627ad.2461ce84@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:40:36 EDT Subject: Re: David Martin To: john@probst.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/5/99 10:33:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > Now all we have to do is separate Jan from his keyboard :))))) ++++ Aw, gee! d'ya wanna tak' all da ennertanement outa dis ting? ~Gester~ ++++ Kojak here.... anyboddy who speeks EBONICS noes that enertanement is spelt wid one "N " but he's lernin...... From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 6 03:01:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 03:01:45 +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 DAA18175 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 03:01:39 +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 10f535-0009tM-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 May 1999 17:01:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 17:52:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Cross posted to rgb Particularly for those who care about such things: Probst's Rule for Seating Strategy with imperfect arrow switching: If more than one eighth of the rounds are switched, sit half the number of tables away from the strongest pair in the room in the same line as them. It's worth up to 2% Failing which, sit as close as possible to the weakest pair, making sure you switch the same boards as they do. That's worth up to 2% Combine both if you can. Enjoy! Cheers John Article to be posted on DWS's web-site shortly -- 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 May 6 03:41:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 03:41:14 +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 DAA18430 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 03:41:07 +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 10f5fC-0006mB-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 May 1999 17:40:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 18:40:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: David Martin In-Reply-To: <57627ad.2461ce84@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <57627ad.2461ce84@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 5/5/99 10:33:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > >> Now all we have to do is separate Jan from his keyboard :))))) > >++++ Aw, gee! d'ya wanna tak' all da ennertanement outa dis ting? > ~Gester~ ++++ > >Kojak here.... anyboddy who speeks EBONICS noes that enertanement is spelt >wid one "N " but he's lernin...... So is DM's absence a case of absquatulatory hyberbolic obfuscatory sesquipedalian oratorical denial defenestration syndrome? like, It's all too much, I'm jumping :)) 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 May 6 04:35:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 04:35:47 +1000 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18662 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 04:35:39 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (529) by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id iALLa16142; Wed, 5 May 1999 14:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6997f5e8.2461e795@aol.com> Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 14:27:33 EDT Subject: Re: David Martin To: john@probst.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/5/99 1:44:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > absquatulatory hyberbolic obfuscatory sesquipedalian oratorical denial > defenestration syndrome? > > like, It's all too much, I'm jumping :)) Cheers John Kojak here..... No Fair! First you respond in a foreign language, then you run off without getting a reply. But don't worry, I'll get Grattan to translate it into English for me. (At least what an educationally deprived American can understand). These remarks are of course addressed to your "like, its all too much, I'm jumping". ++++ Well, I'd say a person should never use words he cannot spell. But I have no desire to escape from here, am arch rather than arced, have nothing to hide that I'm prepared to disclose, communicate with people at the level of their perceived intelligence (which sometimes involves merely a terse 'no'), and have long recognized the futility of the psychologically disordered when they throw valuable things like computers out of windows. But don't stop 'em jumping, I say. Grattan ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 6 05:05:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 05:05:13 +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 FAA18751 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 05:05:08 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10f6ya-000LXe-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 May 1999 19:05:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 18:34:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: David Martin References: <57627ad.2461ce84@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <57627ad.2461ce84@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Tampa twins wrote: >john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: >> Now all we have to do is separate Jan from his keyboard :))))) >++++ Aw, gee! d'ya wanna tak' all da ennertanement outa dis ting? > ~Gester~ ++++ I have played with Grattan as a regular partner, so I know his ability to count ..... >Kojak here.... anyboddy who speeks EBONICS noes that enertanement is spelt ^ ^ ^ >wid one "N " but he's lernin...... .... but discovering that Kojak says one when he means three is disturbing! :)) -- 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 May 6 05:21:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 05:21:17 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18814 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 05:21:12 +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 MAA22234 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 12:21:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004d01be972c$6bb2fcc0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <9905041152.aa11293@flash.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:15:05 -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 From: Adam Beneschan > > Marvin French wrote: > > > I have never heard of anyone's perpetrating a psychic > > natural redouble of a takeout double with a bad hand and short trumps, > > knowing the doubler almost certainly won't pass, and can't imagine its > > being done. > > It happened at the NAOP in Vancouver, when John Adams redoubled 1H > (double) with Q972 --- Q9872 K965. Maybe you don't consider this a > "bad hand", but it probably doesn't meet most people's requirements > for a standard redouble. Anyway, it had the desired effect of getting > the opponents to play the hand going down, instead of going down in > 1Hx (advancer had 6 good hearts and would have passed eagerly). I > don't know if Mr. Adams would have tried the same with, say, > Q972 --- J9872 J965, but it's certainly conceivable, and it probably > would have worked. (The main risk is that partner will think you have > more defense and double their contract, but 1Sx or 2Cx making is > better than -300. Assuming *they* don't redouble!) > > However, had Adams happened to be playing against someone who played > that a advancer's pass of a redouble was for business, and not known > about this beforehand, he wouldn't have been a happy man. > If John Adams does this often enough that a partner will allow for it, then the redouble is Alertable. Otherwise it is a sort of semi-psych, taking his chances that partner won't do something damaging (like bidding 4H). I would take my chances against someone who does that, and not worry about it. If the redouble is Alerted as possibly not willing to play the redoubled contract, then pass over a redouble becomes natural. Requiring that one must bid with S-xxx H-xxxx D-xxx C-xxx after 1H-Dbl-Rdbl is unplayable, IMO. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 6 07:50:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 07:50:44 +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 HAA19367 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 07:50:36 +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 RAA25302 for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 17:50:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18532 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 May 1999 17:50:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 17:50:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905052150.RAA18532@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > wish to accomplish? > ++++ (1) Previous and full disclosure of legal partnership agreements , > explicit or implicit. > (2) As regulating authorities may desire, controls upon the use of > conventions. The Tampa Boys ++++ > Well, nobody can argue with those goals! Now how do we accomplish (1), given the existence of complex agreements, some of which may be conditional on the opponents' agreements? And given that some of the opponents' agreements may be dependent on our agreements? While I have no doubt that the above is what is desired in principle, what goal can we set that might be achievable in practice? Is it even legal to have an agreement that depends on what you think the opponents agree to do _after_ one's own action? (This is the merry-go-round problem.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 6 14:47:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA20294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 May 1999 14:47:34 +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 OAA20289 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 14:47:27 +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 <19990506044714.VRMN6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Wed, 5 May 1999 21:47:14 -0700 Message-ID: <37311FF3.712B77F@home.com> Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 21:52:03 -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: David Martin References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Now all we have to do is separate Jan from his keyboard :))))) Good luck with that. My wife has tried it now for a year without success! (she's the one who says "good luck") :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 00:42:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 00:42:10 +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 AAA23625 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 00:41:57 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (7999) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vMTTa04815; Thu, 6 May 1999 10:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <42968c10.246303c7@aol.com> Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:40:07 EDT Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/5/99 5:52:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > Now how do we accomplish (1), given the existence of complex > agreements, some of which may be conditional on the opponents' > agreements? And given that some of the opponents' agreements may be > dependent on our agreements? While I have no doubt that the above is > what is desired in principle, what goal can we set that might be > achievable in practice? +++++ When I make the regulation for disclosure finding the means to comply is not my problem, the partnership must do that or not use the method. +++++ > > Is it even legal to have an agreement that depends on what you think > the opponents agree to do _after_ one's own action? (This is the > merry-go-round problem.) +++++++ I believe I may play that 1NT - P - 2H is transfer but 1NT - Dbl - 2H is natural (whether that is the best method or not). If I can do it on the first round I can do it on the fourth round of the auction and, absent any specific control by regulation of convention, in regard to any sequence. ++++++++ ~gester~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 01:16:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 01:16:50 +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 BAA23710 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 01:16:39 +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 LAA09026 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 11:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA19020 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 May 1999 11:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 11:16:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905061516.LAA19020@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > +++++ When I make the regulation for disclosure finding the means > to comply is not my problem, the partnership must do that or not use > the method. +++++ If you take that seriously, most pairs' bidding systems are illegal. Surely you don't expect pairs to dump 100 pages or so of notes on their opponents. Don't the Meckwell notes run 700 or 800 pages? And don't Meckwell keep the notes secret, only explaining as specific sequences occur? > > Is it even legal to have an agreement that depends on what you think > > the opponents agree to do _after_ one's own action? (This is the > > merry-go-round problem.) > +++++++ I believe I may play that 1NT - P - 2H is transfer but > 1NT - Dbl - 2H is natural (whether that is the best method > or not). > If I can do it on the first round I can do it on the fourth > round of the auction and, absent any specific control > by regulation of convention, in regard to any sequence. > ++++++++ ~gester~ No question about the above; that's not the problem. Sorry to have been unclear. How about 1NT-P-2H... If the _fourth hand's_ double of a transfer bid is takeout of the suit _shown_ (spades), 2H is a transfer. If double would show hearts, 2H is natural, not a transfer. Is this legal? (I am not asserting it's a good agreement; I'm asking whether it's legal, assuming both meanings are within the convention regulations.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 02:23:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 02:23:05 +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 CAA24014 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 02:22:58 +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 RAA16077 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 17:22:50 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA19008 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 17:22:45 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 06 May 1999 16:22:44 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA09394 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 May 1999 17:22:44 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 17:22:44 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199905061622.RAA09394@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > How about 1NT-P-2H... > If the _fourth hand's_ double of a transfer bid is takeout of the suit > _shown_ (spades), 2H is a transfer. If double would show hearts, 2H is > natural, not a transfer. Is this legal? (I am not asserting it's a > good agreement; I'm asking whether it's legal, assuming both meanings > are within the convention regulations.) > I would argue that it may be legal but it is not complete. There needs to be a further clause to the agreement: "and if the meaning of fourth hand`s double depends on the meaning of 2H then 2H is ..." Which makes this not a very good example, because the meaning of fourth hand`s double is very likely to depend on the meaning of 2H; so the opening side have no useful agreement about 2H. **** Boring, dry-as-dust rant repeated ... Let us go back to the most common examples: opening pre-empts and jump overcalls. Pair A play unsound pre-empts (0-9 5+ card suit) if opponent play take-out doubles in defence to pre-empts and sound pre-empts (6-10 6/7 card suit) if opponents play penalty doubles in defence to pre-empts. Pair B play penalty doubles of pre-empts which may be no HCP or a 5 card suit and play take-out doubles of pre-empts which show some values and a 6 card suit. When pair A play pair B, pair A has no useful agreement as to pre-empting style. Perhaps pair A could agree that "if the opponents defence to pre-empts depends on our pre-empting style then we play the minimum requirements such that opponent's double is TO" (i.e. 1+ and 6 card suit, above). Is that legal and complete? You get the same situation by replacing "pre-empts" by "jump overcalls" and "take-out doubles" by "negative doubles". 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 May 7 03:22:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 03:22:13 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA24130 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 03:22:02 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA16250 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 17:21:25 GMT Message-ID: <3731CFAC.62E5D348@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 19:21:48 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact References: <199905061516.LAA19020@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id RAA16250 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner a =E9crit : > > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > +++++ When I make the regulation for disclosure finding the means > > to comply is not my problem, the partnership must do that or not use > > the method. +++++ > > If you take that seriously, most pairs' bidding systems are illegal. > Surely you don't expect pairs to dump 100 pages or so of notes on > their opponents. Don't the Meckwell notes run 700 or 800 pages? > And don't Meckwell keep the notes secret, only explaining as > specific sequences occur? > > > > Is it even legal to have an agreement that depends on what you thi= nk > > > the opponents agree to do _after_ one's own action? (This is the > > > merry-go-round problem.) > > +++++++ I believe I may play that 1NT - P - 2H is transfer but > > 1NT - Dbl - 2H is natural (whether that is the best me= thod > > or not). > > If I can do it on the first round I can do it on the f= ourth > > round of the auction and, absent any specific control > > by regulation of convention, in regard to any sequence. > > ++++++++ ~gester~ > > No question about the above; that's not the problem. Sorry to have > been unclear. > > How about 1NT-P-2H... > If the _fourth hand's_ double of a transfer bid is takeout of the suit > _shown_ (spades), 2H is a transfer. If double would show hearts, 2H is > natural, not a transfer. Is this legal? (I am not asserting it's a > good agreement; I'm asking whether it's legal, assuming both meanings > are within the convention regulations.) We had the same discussion not so long as two weeks ago. I should say it= 's legal: no one, no law, no regulation object to the meaning of a bid possi= bly depending on the meaning of an opponent's bid (different defenses against= weak or strong NT); and as nowhere I can see a distinction made between past a= nd future opponents' bids... However I think it's a hole in system regulatio= ns and it leads to conflicts and paradoxes as described above. How simple and ef= fective it would be to make a system regulation which forbids any bid the meaning= of which takes into account the meaning of a future opponent's bid! As I understand it, full disclosure lies in providing opponents with the= same clues (or algorithm) as your partnership to decode your bids. Sometimes t= he algorithm doesn't converge; not a real problem with multi-meaning bids (d= ecoding algorithm), but there can be one with conditional-meaning bids, especiall= y when even the player who has to choose the bid has a problem to apply the (cod= ing) algorithm! JP Rocafort JP Rocafort From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 03:29:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 03:29:36 +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 DAA24158 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 03:29:27 +1000 Received: from idt.net (ppp-24.ts-1.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.24]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA05673; Thu, 6 May 1999 13:29:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3731281E.4CA2C3B@idt.net> Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 22:26:54 -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: Robin Barker CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact References: <199905061622.RAA09394@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: > > Steve wrote: > > How about 1NT-P-2H... > > If the _fourth hand's_ double of a transfer bid is takeout of the suit > > _shown_ (spades), 2H is a transfer. If double would show hearts, 2H is > > natural, not a transfer. Is this legal? (I am not asserting it's a > > good agreement; I'm asking whether it's legal, assuming both meanings > > are within the convention regulations.) > > > > I would argue that it may be legal but it is not complete. > There needs to be a further clause to the agreement: > "and if the meaning of fourth hand`s double depends on the meaning > of 2H then 2H is ..." > > Which makes this not a very good example, because the meaning of fourth > hand`s double is very likely to depend on the meaning of 2H; so the > opening side have no useful agreement about 2H. > > **** Boring, dry-as-dust rant repeated ... > > Let us go back to the most common examples: opening pre-empts and jump > overcalls. Let's not go back :) This is a perfectly good example. I think Steve's putative agreement is (or should be) illegal. The responsibility for definition should reside with the first person (pair?) in the auction to bid. Thus, it should be incumbent upon the pair bidding 2H to define the bid, regardless how the defending pair may choose to defend. Any other regulation drops us into the Chicken or Egg problem, with no way out. Irv From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 05:50:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 05:50:25 +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 FAA24415 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 05:50:19 +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 MAA01915; Thu, 6 May 1999 12:50:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <022701be97f9$ab79f520$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <199905061622.RAA09394@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:49:44 -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 The following response was written while forgetting that Robin is from the U. K. The answers are based on ACBL regulations, and I don't know what regulations apply, if any, elsewhere. The ACBL's policies on varying methods have some interesting legal aspects, so I'll quote them: ########## 1. Both members of a partnership must use the same system. They must use identical methods. (During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission from the Tournament Director. The Director might allow a pair to change a convention but almost never their basic system.) ########## But if the "system" calls for weak notrumps against a pair that plays conventional doubles of 1NT, and strong notrumps against penalty doublers, does that constitute "varying" or is it a conditional agreement that is not varied? ########## 5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against their opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. ########## Must the conventional call or preempt precede the countermeasure being altered, or can the countermeasure come first in the auction? If the latter, then one can indeed switch to weak notrumps as a countermeasure to opposing conventional doubles of 1NT. I can see the ACBL's attitude toward conventions: You must use a convention consistently, no matter which countermeasures you encounter. Since an SO can regulate conventions, this is legal. I cannot see why item 5. mentions preempts but not other natural bids that may vary greatly in strength (e.g., simple overcalls, 1NT openings). That doesn't make sense. In fact we know that various meanings may be applied to a double of 1NT, depending on whether it is a weak or strong notrump. Item 5. has a loophole, in that it seems to permit different countermeasures against different opponents, even if the call being countered is not different in nature. That would go against the intent of Item 1., would it not? Robin Barker wrote: > Let us go back to the most common examples: opening pre-empts and jump > overcalls. > > Pair A play unsound pre-empts (0-9 5+ card suit) if opponent play > take-out doubles in defence to pre-empts and sound pre-empts (6-10 6/7 > card suit) if opponents play penalty doubles in defence to pre-empts. > This is legal, because takeout doubles are a convention. Pair A plays sound preempts, but if opponents use takeout doubles their counter is to use light preempts. But wait! The opponents can in turn switch to penalty doubles, because countermeasures against preemptive bids can be altered. However, it is not a paradox. Whoever speaks first has the right of way. This leads to the ridiculous situation in which each side insists on seeing the other side's cc before disclosing their methods. And what if the cc says we play a against b, but c against d, but the other cc says we play b against c and d against a? Paradox regained. > Pair B play penalty doubles of pre-empts which may be no HCP or a 5 > card suit and play take-out doubles of pre-empts which show some values > and a 6 card suit. > This is legal. You can vary your defenses to preemptive or conventional bids. The ACBL does not mention that defenses against 1NT openings can be varied according to their strength, but surely this is so. I play business doubles against weak notrumps and conventional double (C+D+H or D+H or H) against strong notrumps. Going back to item 1., is this varying my system during the game or is it an unvarying conditional policy? > When pair A play pair B, pair A has no useful agreement as to > pre-empting style. > A pair can have only one preempting style, unless varying it as a countermeasure to an opposing convention or preemptive bid. Does that apply to takeout doubles of preempts? I don't know. Going by item 5., it looks like we have a paradox. > Perhaps pair A could agree that "if the opponents defence to pre-empts > depends on our pre-empting style then we play the minimum requirements > such that opponent's double is TO" (i.e. 1+ and 6 card suit, above). > Is that legal and complete? I think a lawyer could argue that the regulation against changing system (preemptive style, in this case) takes precedence over the rule that says you can vary countermeasures against conventions (takeout double, in this case), making this policy illegal. > > You get the same situation by replacing "pre-empts" by "jump overcalls" Or 1NT openings, or simple overcalls, or any bid that has different ranges for different partnerships. > and "take-out doubles" by "negative doubles". >. Or any conventional call. If all this makes me appear to be confused on the issue, it's no wonder, because I *am* confused. I think maybe the answer should be that initial actions cannot be changed based on opposing defenses that come subsequent to those actions, even if the countermeasures are conventional. The "counter" in "countermeasures" implies subsequent action, not preceding action. A counterpunch in boxing comes after an opponent's swing, not before. Tentative conclusions: Item 1. is okay, but must add that a fixed variation in system that occurs after an opposing conventional call, or after any opposing call if it is based on the strength of that call, does not constitute a change in system. A fixed variation in system that is based on the opponnents' general system may include initial actions. (So you can use light opening preempts against a Big Club system, but sound preempts normally) Item 5 should be changed to read: 5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and as a consequence adopt any agreement that was not previously established, provided it complies with Item 1. Something like that. It means you can't change any such new agreement during the rest of the session. Paradox lost? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 05:55:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 05:55:26 +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 FAA24431 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 05:55:20 +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 MAA02677; Thu, 6 May 1999 12:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <023301be97fa$5e28c160$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <199905061516.LAA19020@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:55:14 -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 Willner wrote: > > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > +++++ When I make the regulation for disclosure finding the means > > to comply is not my problem, the partnership must do that or not use > > the method. +++++ > > If you take that seriously, most pairs' bidding systems are illegal. > Surely you don't expect pairs to dump 100 pages or so of notes on > their opponents. Don't the Meckwell notes run 700 or 800 pages? > And don't Meckwell keep the notes secret, only explaining as > specific sequences occur? A local expert asked them about this, and got the answer that the secrecy is because they don't want weak players to adopt their methods, which could be disastrous for a pair that is not good enough to handle them. Should we admire their altruism? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 06:00:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 06:00:10 +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 GAA24449 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 06:00:00 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3939) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vACSa27691; Thu, 6 May 1999 15:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 15:58:08 EDT Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/6/99 11:20:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > f you take that seriously, most pairs' bidding systems are illegal. > Surely you don't expect pairs to dump 100 pages or so of notes on > their opponents. Don't the Meckwell notes run 700 or 800 pages? > And don't Meckwell keep the notes secret, only explaining as > specific sequences occur? ++++ First it is for the regulating authority to determine what shall be disclosed and when. Second I would expect most reasonable authorities to require that what may reasonably be expected by opponents shall have minimal disclosure, standard bridge matters none, but that meanings the opposition will not anticipate shall have full detailed prior exposure in a prescribed manner. As for 'secret notes', there is nothing in players' methods that the regulating authority may not require them to disclose to their opponents at a prescribed time; that is specifically the law. Anything that requires countermeasures to be discussed needs to be disclosed at a time when these may be discussed, and should not be allowed to be played otherwise. Certainly if an agreement is employed an opponent not forewarned in time to discuss a necessary countermeasure is entitled to a score adjustment when that necessity is demonstrated by the injured party. ++++ ~ Gester ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 06:11:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA24484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 06:11:03 +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 GAA24479 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 06:10:57 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3939) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fOWSa16495; Thu, 6 May 1999 16:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <429777b1.24635070@aol.com> Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 16:07:12 EDT Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact To: rmb1@cise.npl.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/6/99 12:24:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes: > Which makes this not a very good example, because the meaning of fourth > hand`s double is very likely to depend on the meaning of 2H; so the > opening side have no useful agreement about 2H. > > **** Boring, dry-as-dust rant repeated ... > +++ I keep hearing this one. As far as I am concerned players are not required to establish their defence (countermeasure) until the meaning of any prior call is disclosed. It really is not worth discussion. Starting with the Dealer the Director should simply require the players in rotation to state the meaning of each call without reference to a later call. If the regulations allow a pair to decide the meaning of their call in the knowledge of what the defence will be, the regulating authority should require that they set out their options fully on the convention card beforehand.++++ Gester. ~~~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 07:10:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 07:10:27 +1000 Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24704 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 07:10:21 +1000 Received: from mail.company.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (2411 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 17:10:09 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 6 May 1999 17:10:02 -0700 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530DD9@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: rulings@acbl.org Subject: RE: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 17:10:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French [SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 3:50 PM > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: rulings@acbl.org > Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact > >Tentative conclusions: > >Item 1. is okay, but must add that a fixed variation in system that >occurs after an opposing conventional call, or after any opposing call >if it is based on the strength of that call, does not constitute a >change in system. A fixed variation in system that is based on the >opponnents' general system may include initial actions. > >(So you can use light opening preempts against a Big Club system, but >sound preempts normally) Wait one minute here! I had always understood that players were not allowed to vary their opening bids in response to their opponent's system. In fact, I can recall being told explicitly that it is forbidden to open lighter than usual against a pair playing strong club. Consider our old Chicken + Egg problem. Player A plays light preempts. Player B adopts penalty doubles. Player A switched to sound preempts Player B switches back to penalty doubles. Now go back to Marvin's example of deliberately chosing to open light versus a pair playing a strong club system. You are suggesting that a player can chose his action at round "N" in the game based on your opponent's strategies at stage N + i This is the SAME situation. The only difference is that the precise meanings of the bids have changed. To me, I don't care much if one bid is a pass which is "natural" and another is a double which may or may not be conventional and thus subject to regulation. A successful set of Laws needs to be grounded in basic principles, applied consistantly throughout. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 09:45:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 09:45:41 +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 JAA24944 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 09:45:29 +1000 Received: from p25s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.38] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10fXpS-0005CA-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 00:45:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 18:59:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01be97ea$294ce800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:33 PM Subject: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch >Cross posted to rgb > >Particularly for those who care about such things: > >Probst's Rule for Seating Strategy with imperfect arrow switching: > >If more than one eighth of the rounds are switched, sit half the number >of tables away from the strongest pair in the room in the same line as >them. It's worth up to 2% > >Failing which, sit as close as possible to the weakest pair, making sure >you switch the same boards as they do. That's worth up to 2% > >Combine both if you can. Enjoy! > > Cheers John > >Article to be posted on DWS's web-site shortly Needing 3.7% to overtake Sergey in the fight for the Fifth Friday Trophy I think all advice is to be heeded. Usually there are 9/10 tables playing 8/9 rounds at 3 ( depending on the time the British Legion is closing). A/S is one or two rounds at the end. The strongest pair against us (Annie and Eric) are lying third. They always sit N/S at table one. I understand that you are telling me to sit N/S at table 5 and ensure N/S table 4 and 6 are weak. This is easy, but won't it help Annie and Eric as well? Cheers Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 10:16:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA24996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 10:16:25 +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 KAA24991 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 10:16:19 +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 RAA09089 for ; Thu, 6 May 1999 17:16:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <026601be981e$d5b4f680$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530DD9@MAIL> Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 17:14:29 -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 Richard Willey wrote: > > Wait one minute here! > I had always understood that players were not allowed to vary > their opening bids in response to their opponent's system. Where is that written, please? > In fact, I > can recall being told explicitly that it is forbidden to open lighter > than usual against a pair playing strong club. > Can you point to where the regulation is to be found? >Consider our old Chicken + Egg problem. > > Player A plays light preempts. > Player B adopts penalty doubles. > Player A switched to sound preempts > Player B switches back to penalty doubles. > > Now go back to Marvin's example of deliberately chosing to open > light versus a pair playing a strong club system. > > You are suggesting that a player can chose his action at round > "N" in the game based on your opponent's strategies at stage N + i I argued against that idea, actually, but made an exception with regard to systems, as opposed to individual conventions or treatments. > > This is the SAME situation. The only difference is that the > precise meanings of the bids have changed. > To me, I don't care much if one bid is a pass which is "natural" > and another is a double which may or may not be conventional and thus > subject to regulation. > > A successful set of Laws needs to be grounded in basic > principles, applied consistantly throughout. > Well, I was talking about entire systems, not just individual conventions or treatments. Maybe it is the same, I don't know. Thinking more on this (which I should have done before), it seems to me I can play light overcalls against negative doublers and sound overcalls against penalty doublers, which is only common sense. That would be varying my system at N because of N + 1, but it feels right that I should be able to do this. I play penalty doubles over light overcalls and negative doubles over sound overcalls (K/S-like, and seemingly extinct), so we indeed have a chicken & egg situation if both pairs have these understandings on their cc. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 12:04:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 12:04:31 +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 MAA25188 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 12:04:25 +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 10fZzu-000FoP-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 02:04:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 02:54:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch 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: >Article to be posted on DWS's web-site shortly http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/why_1in8.htm -- 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 May 7 12:04:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 12:04:32 +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 MAA25187 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 12:04:25 +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 10fZzu-000FoO-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 02:04:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 02:50:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote [under a pseudonym]: >In a message dated 5/6/99 11:20:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > >> f you take that seriously, most pairs' bidding systems are illegal. >> Surely you don't expect pairs to dump 100 pages or so of notes on >> their opponents. Don't the Meckwell notes run 700 or 800 pages? >> And don't Meckwell keep the notes secret, only explaining as >> specific sequences occur? >++++ First it is for the regulating authority to determine what >shall be disclosed and when. Right. That is what the Law says. > Second I would expect most reasonable authorities to >require that what may reasonably be expected by opponents shall >have minimal disclosure, standard bridge matters none, but that >meanings the opposition will not anticipate shall have full detailed >prior exposure in a prescribed manner. Most reasonable authorities? > As for 'secret notes', there is nothing in players' methods that >the regulating authority may not require them to disclose to their >opponents at a prescribed time; that is specifically the law. Anything >that requires countermeasures to be discussed needs to be disclosed >at a time when these may be discussed, and should not be allowed >to be played otherwise. Certainly if an agreement is employed an >opponent not forewarned in time to discuss a necessary >countermeasure is entitled to a score adjustment when that necessity >is demonstrated by the injured party. Why? You have just said it is up to the RA [Regulating Authority, covering SOs and ZOs]. If the RA does not require soi-disant secret notes to be disclosed then apparent damage is not relevant. Let us look at L40B: 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. Recently I was blithely chatting about Full Disclosure, and someone here or on RGB pulled me up short by saying that Full Disclosure does not appear in the Laws, and by George, it doesn't! Consider a case where an RA decides on the following regulation: If a pair wishes to play a convention that their opponents may not understand then they are required to disclose it by posting it on a tree in Central Park, New York, between Thanksgiving day and Chanekuh each year. Suppose you take up the Tampa Two-bid. You post it on a tree at the relevant time. Then you play in an event run by this RA, you open 2H [Tampa] and get a good result when the oppos have a misunderstanding about the defence to this opening. Redress? No, what for? You have followed the requirements of L40B. You may say that the RA has acted irresponsibly, but it is not illegal. I think the above post from Grattan, and other posts in this and similar threads, confuses two matters: [1] What the Law requires in the way of disclosure, which is actually what the RA decides. [2] What we feel that ought to be required in the way of disclosure. Perhaps the Law should be more specific in matters of disclosure? Perhaps it is. What about L75A? Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. This would seem to indicate that Full Disclosure *is* a requirement. Unfortunately, it then refers you to L40, and L40, as we have seen, leaves it to the RA. -- 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 May 7 20:07:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 20:07:24 +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 UAA26133 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 20:07:17 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-234.uunet.be [194.7.9.234]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA08173 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 12:07:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3732B70F.35E38485@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 11:49:03 +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: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch References: <01be97ea$294ce800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > > > >Probst's Rule for Seating Strategy with imperfect arrow switching: > > > > Needing 3.7% to overtake Sergey in the fight for the Fifth Friday Trophy I > think all advice is to be heeded. > > Usually there are 9/10 tables playing 8/9 rounds at 3 ( depending on the > time the British Legion is closing). A/S is one or two rounds at the end. > The strongest pair against us (Annie and Eric) are lying third. They always > sit N/S at table one. I understand that you are telling me to sit N/S at > table 5 and ensure N/S table 4 and 6 are weak. > > This is easy, but won't it help Annie and Eric as well? > As responsible for the fifth friday I strongly object to these tactics! But note one thing : John's strategies are only for British-style (almost wrote English there - sorry AnnY, and the day after the first Welsh elections as well !) switching habits. If you want to win at the fifth friday, your best tactic seems to me to get a whole bunch of beginners to sit East-West against your North-South! I'm sure that's not what SergeY does in Omsk !?! There is of course another strategy. Go play in the Acol on thursday (anonymously) and then in Bristol or Penarth on Friday. Are you sure you know all the players JohnnY, AnnY, JeremY ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 20:07:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 20:07:22 +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 UAA26132 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 20:07:15 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-234.uunet.be [194.7.9.234]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA08163 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 12:07:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3732B504.40F33681@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 11:40:20 +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: Full disclosure before-the-fact References: <199905061516.LAA19020@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > If you take that seriously, most pairs' bidding systems are illegal. > Surely you don't expect pairs to dump 100 pages or so of notes on > their opponents. Don't the Meckwell notes run 700 or 800 pages? > And don't Meckwell keep the notes secret, only explaining as > specific sequences occur? > I am certain that when some opponent says 'if I had known that beforehand, I would not have ...' and makes it believable, that Meckwell will be ruled against. I also believe that they know that and accept it as a consequence for them not giving full access to the notes. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 22:19:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 22:19:57 +1000 Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26369 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 22:19:50 +1000 Received: from mail.company.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (3255 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 08:19:45 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Fri, 7 May 1999 08:19:43 -0700 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530DE4@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 08:19:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> You are suggesting that a player can chose his action at round >> "N" in the game based on your opponent's strategies at stage N + i >I argued against that idea, actually, but made an exception with >regard to systems, as opposed to individual conventions or treatments. ... >Well, I was talking about entire systems, not just individual >conventions or treatments. Maybe it is the same, I don't know. I would argue that since a bidding system is comprised of a large number of inter-related conventions and treatments, you can not change an individual component of the system without changing the system. >Thinking more on this (which I should have done before), it seems to >me I can play light overcalls against negative doublers and sound >overcalls against penalty doublers, which is only common sense. That >would be varying my system at N because of N + 1, but it feels right >that I should be able to do this. I play penalty doubles over light >overcalls and negative doubles over sound overcalls (K/S-like, and >seemingly extinct), so we indeed have a chicken & egg situation if >both pairs have these understandings on their cc. Your "common sense" is extremely different than mine. To me, it does not "feel right" that you should be allowed to vary your system at stage N in response to the opponent's choice of actions at stage N+i. This is what is causing the entire "Chicken and the Egg" problem in the first place. There are two possible ways to avoid the Chicken and the Egg problem. One method is to change startegy selection into a simultaneous game. Each player simultaneously discloses their choice of strategy. Having declarer their strategy, each player is required to play according to it during the actual bidding process. As a logical analogy, the children's game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is played this way. As an alternative, the selection of bidding strategies can be modeled as a multi-stage game. In this version, once a player has selected their strategy during stage N of the game, they must not be allowed to change it, or, as we all know, the entire system collapses down to an endless loop. To go back to the ACBL regulations that you were quoting >5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their >opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against their >opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not vary >their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. It seems clear to me at least that the intent of the second sentence is to forbid players from altering their system in response to changes in the opponent's methods. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 7 23:31:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 May 1999 23:31:16 +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 XAA26557 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 23:31:09 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with UUCP id IAA28503 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 08:31:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0BVI0002 Fri, 07 May 99 08:27:10 Message-ID: <9905070827.0BVI000@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 07 May 99 08:27:10 Subject: FULL DISC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just a thought or two. It seems that a pair should be entitled to a straightforward answer to the question 'What is the agreement to XXX?' Therefore, if a pair has agreements that depend upon the opponent's defensive agreement[s] then it is imperative that they have definitive agreements for when the opponents have conditional defenses. This implies that a regulation is in order forbidding agreements conditional on the opponent's defenses, if they do not include definitive agreements for when opponents have conditional defenses. And violation of the regulation ought to carry severe penalties. Roger Pewick B>The following response was written while forgetting that Robin is from B>the U. K. The answers are based on ACBL regulations, and I don't know B>what regulations apply, if any, elsewhere. The ACBL's policies on B>varying methods have some interesting legal aspects, so I'll quote B>them: B>########## B>1. Both members of a partnership must use the same system. They must B>use identical methods. (During a session of play, a system may not be B>varied, except with permission from the Tournament Director. The B>Director might allow a pair to change a convention but almost never B>their basic system.) B>########## B>But if the "system" calls for weak notrumps against a pair that plays B>conventional doubles of 1NT, and strong notrumps against penalty B>doublers, does that constitute "varying" or is it a conditional B>agreement that is not varied? B>########## B>5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their B>opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against their B>opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not vary B>their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. B>########## B>Must the conventional call or preempt precede the countermeasure being B>altered, or can the countermeasure come first in the auction? If the B>latter, then one can indeed switch to weak notrumps as a B>countermeasure to opposing conventional doubles of 1NT. B>I can see the ACBL's attitude toward conventions: You must use a B>convention consistently, no matter which countermeasures you B>encounter. Since an SO can regulate conventions, this is legal. I B>cannot see why item 5. mentions preempts but not other natural bids B>that may vary greatly in strength (e.g., simple overcalls, 1NT B>openings). That doesn't make sense. In fact we know that various B>meanings may be applied to a double of 1NT, depending on whether it is B>a weak or strong notrump. B>Item 5. has a loophole, in that it seems to permit different B>countermeasures against different opponents, even if the call being B>countered is not different in nature. That would go against the intent B>of Item 1., would it not? B>Robin Barker wrote: B>> Let us go back to the most common examples: opening pre-empts and B>jump B>> overcalls. B>> B>> Pair A play unsound pre-empts (0-9 5+ card suit) if opponent play B>> take-out doubles in defence to pre-empts and sound pre-empts (6-10 B>6/7 B>> card suit) if opponents play penalty doubles in defence to B>pre-empts. B>> B>This is legal, because takeout doubles are a convention. Pair A plays B>sound preempts, but if opponents use takeout doubles their counter is B>to use light preempts. But wait! The opponents can in turn switch to B>penalty doubles, because countermeasures against preemptive bids can B>be altered. B>However, it is not a paradox. Whoever speaks first has the right of B>way. This leads to the ridiculous situation in which each side insists B>on seeing the other side's cc before disclosing their methods. And B>what if the cc says we play a against b, but c against d, but the B>other cc says we play b against c and d against a? Paradox regained. B>> Pair B play penalty doubles of pre-empts which may be no HCP or a 5 B>> card suit and play take-out doubles of pre-empts which show some B>values B>> and a 6 card suit. B>> B>This is legal. You can vary your defenses to preemptive or B>conventional bids. The ACBL does not mention that defenses against B>1NT openings can be varied according to their strength, but surely B>this is so. I play business doubles against weak notrumps and B>conventional double (C+D+H or D+H or H) against strong notrumps. Going B>back to item 1., is this varying my system during the game or is it an B>unvarying conditional policy? B>> When pair A play pair B, pair A has no useful agreement as to B>> pre-empting style. B>> B>A pair can have only one preempting style, unless varying it as a B>countermeasure to an opposing convention or preemptive bid. Does that B>apply to takeout doubles of preempts? I don't know. Going by item 5., B>it looks like we have a paradox. B>> Perhaps pair A could agree that "if the opponents defence to B>pre-empts B>> depends on our pre-empting style then we play the minimum B>requirements B>> such that opponent's double is TO" (i.e. 1+ and 6 card suit, B>above). B>> Is that legal and complete? B>I think a lawyer could argue that the regulation against changing B>system (preemptive style, in this case) takes precedence over the rule B>that says you can vary countermeasures against conventions (takeout B>double, in this case), making this policy illegal. B>> B>> You get the same situation by replacing "pre-empts" by "jump B>overcalls" B>Or 1NT openings, or simple overcalls, or any bid that has different B>ranges for different partnerships. B>> and "take-out doubles" by "negative doubles". B>>. B>Or any conventional call. B>If all this makes me appear to be confused on the issue, it's no B>wonder, because I *am* confused. B>I think maybe the answer should be that initial actions cannot be B>changed based on opposing defenses that come subsequent to those B>actions, even if the countermeasures are conventional. The "counter" B>in "countermeasures" implies subsequent action, not preceding action. B>A counterpunch in boxing comes after an opponent's swing, not before. B>Tentative conclusions: B>Item 1. is okay, but must add that a fixed variation in system that B>occurs after an opposing conventional call, or after any opposing call B>if it is based on the strength of that call, does not constitute a B>change in system. A fixed variation in system that is based on the B>opponnents' general system may include initial actions. B>(So you can use light opening preempts against a Big Club system, but B>sound preempts normally) B>Item 5 should be changed to read: B>5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their B>opponents' convention card and as a consequence adopt any agreement B>that was not previously established, provided it complies with Item 1. B>Something like that. It means you can't change any such new agreement B>during the rest of the session. B>Paradox lost? B>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 00:29:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 00:29:34 +1000 Received: from mail.capgemini.nl (ns.capgemini.nl [194.229.163.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28966 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 00:29:28 +1000 Received: from mail1.capgemini.nl (ns1.capgemini.nl [193.78.92.33]) by mail.capgemini.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA06694 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 16:29:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from capgemini.nl (nud70.capgemini.nl [10.32.34.183]) by mail1.capgemini.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA25499 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 15:59:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from D00-Message_Server by capgemini.nl with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 07 May 1999 15:59:56 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2 Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 15:59:33 +0200 From: "Nico Kaptein" To: rwilley@azure-tech.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Full disclosure before-the-fact 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 It seems to me that you are getting tangled into a fake discussion. It is simply not possible (other than not allowed) to adjust bid N to a = to-be-expected bid N 1 in the way described by Richard. If rho opens, and = opps play penalty doubles over weak jump bids, and negative doubles over = strong jumps, then that is it.=20 You can decide to play strong or weak jump shifts, but there is no chicken = and egg problem here. You are not varying your system at N, as Richard claims, but just = adjusting your system's defence to opp's system. Since both parties can do = that, and cannot change their system after being informed of the changed = defense, nothing can go wrong. Nico <<< Richard Willey 5/ 7 5:19p >>> >> You are suggesting that a player can chose his action at round >> "N" in the game based on your opponent's strategies at stage N i >I argued against that idea, actually, but made an exception with >regard to systems, as opposed to individual conventions or treatments. ... >Well, I was talking about entire systems, not just individual >conventions or treatments. Maybe it is the same, I don't know. I would argue that since a bidding system is comprised of a large number=20 of inter-related conventions and treatments, you can not change an=20 individual component of the system without changing the system. >Thinking more on this (which I should have done before), it seems to >me I can play light overcalls against negative doublers and sound >overcalls against penalty doublers, which is only common sense. That >would be varying my system at N because of N 1, but it feels right >that I should be able to do this. I play penalty doubles over light >overcalls and negative doubles over sound overcalls (K/S-like, and >seemingly extinct), so we indeed have a chicken & egg situation if >both pairs have these understandings on their cc. Your "common sense" is extremely different than mine. To me, it does not "feel right" that you should be allowed to vary your system at stage N in response to the opponent's choice of actions at stage N i. This is what is causing the entire "Chicken and the Egg" problem in the first place. There are two possible ways to avoid the Chicken and the Egg problem. One method is to change startegy selection into a simultaneous game. Each player simultaneously discloses their choice of strategy. Having declarer their strategy, each player is required to play according to it during the actual bidding process. As a logical analogy, the children's game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is played this way. As an alternative, the selection of bidding strategies can be modeled as a multi-stage game. In this version, once a player has selected their strategy during stage N of the game, they=20 must not be allowed to change it, or, as we all know, the entire system collapses down to an endless loop. To go back to the ACBL regulations that you were quoting >5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their >opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against their >opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not vary >their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. It seems clear to me at least that the intent of the second sentence is to forbid players=20 from altering their system in response to changes in the opponent's methods. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 01:15:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:15:47 +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 BAA29057 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:15:38 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14401) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id lBYOa26070; Fri, 7 May 1999 11:14:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7634c57d.24645d68@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 11:14:48 EDT Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact To: nico.kaptein@capgemini.nl 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk thank you. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 01:17:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:17:04 +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 BAA29080 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:16:58 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14401) by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id wUVIa27692; Fri, 7 May 1999 11:16:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40691ad.24645db4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 11:16:04 EDT Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact To: rwilley@azure-tech.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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/7/99 8:24:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rwilley@azure-tech.com writes: > As a logical analogy, the children's game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is > played this way. I think you would be very surprised to know of the amount of pelf exchanged by adults daily worldwide, particularly in parts of Asia, in what you describe as a CHILDREN's game. >it seems clear to me at least that the intent of the second sentence is to forbid >players from altering their system in response to changes in the opponents >methods. Right on! From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 01:17:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:17:46 +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 BAA29094 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:17:38 +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 LAA25073 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 11:17:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA20108 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 11:17:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 11:17:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905071517.LAA20108@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > [1] What the Law requires in the way of disclosure, which is actually > what the RA decides. > > [2] What we feel that ought to be required in the way of disclosure. Thank you, David. I believe [2] is the question of greater interest. In particular, is it possible to write regulations that a) satisfy our requirement of full disclosure, b) allow freedom to select methods and counter opponents' methods, c) don't introduce paradoxes, and d) are practical and enforceable. I think we can manage any three of the above, but I'm not sure about all four. Richard's comments are especially apt, I think. Present regulations seem to be a strange hybrid of "simultaneous selection" and "staged selection" of strategies. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 01:18:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:18:05 +1000 Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29108 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:17:58 +1000 Received: from mail.company.com([10.2.128.3]) (8896 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 10:58:17 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Fri, 7 May 1999 13:58:13 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530E1C@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: FULL DISC Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 13:58:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'd like to address a couple different responses in one letter. Nico commented >It seems to me that you are getting tangled into a fake discussion. >It is simply not possible (other than not allowed) to adjust bid N to a to-be-expected >bid N 1 in the way described by Richard. If rho opens, and opps play penalty doubles >over weak jump bids, and negative doubles over strong jumps, then that is it. >You can decide to play strong or weak jump shifts, but there is no chicken and egg problem here. >You are not varying your system at N, as Richard claims, but just adjusting your system's >defence to opp's system. Since both parties can do that, and cannot >change their system after being informed of the changed defense, nothing can go wrong. I think there are two different issues at work here. The first issue is what set of agreements a partnership claims to be playing. As Nico comments, this can almost be construed as a 'non-issue". During the bidding, each player takes an action in turn. "Rolling back" an option is fairly easy toprevent. However, I think that Roger Pewick has hit the nail on the head. >Therefore, if a pair has agreements that depend upon the opponent's >defensive agreement[s] then it is imperative that they have definitive >agreements for when the opponents have conditional defenses. >This implies that a regulation is in order forbidding agreements conditional >on the opponent's defenses, if they do not include definitive agreements for >when opponents have conditional defenses. And violation of the regulation >ought to carry severe penalties. The big problem crops up when players begin to adjust their styles in response to the expected behavior of the opponents. For example, tightening up their normally lose style in response to a pair that actively employees penalty doubles. B>The following response was written while forgetting that Robin is from B>the U. K. The answers are based on ACBL regulations, and I don't know B>what regulations apply, if any, elsewhere. The ACBL's policies on B>varying methods have some interesting legal aspects, so I'll quote B>them: B>########## B>1. Both members of a partnership must use the same system. They must B>use identical methods. (During a session of play, a system may not be B>varied, except with permission from the Tournament Director. The B>Director might allow a pair to change a convention but almost never B>their basic system.) B>########## B>But if the "system" calls for weak notrumps against a pair that plays B>conventional doubles of 1NT, and strong notrumps against penalty B>doublers, does that constitute "varying" or is it a conditional B>agreement that is not varied? B>########## B>5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their B>opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against their B>opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not vary B>their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. B>########## B>Must the conventional call or preempt precede the countermeasure being B>altered, or can the countermeasure come first in the auction? If the B>latter, then one can indeed switch to weak notrumps as a B>countermeasure to opposing conventional doubles of 1NT. B>I can see the ACBL's attitude toward conventions: You must use a B>convention consistently, no matter which countermeasures you B>encounter. Since an SO can regulate conventions, this is legal. I B>cannot see why item 5. mentions preempts but not other natural bids B>that may vary greatly in strength (e.g., simple overcalls, 1NT B>openings). That doesn't make sense. In fact we know that various B>meanings may be applied to a double of 1NT, depending on whether it is B>a weak or strong notrump. B>Item 5. has a loophole, in that it seems to permit different B>countermeasures against different opponents, even if the call being B>countered is not different in nature. That would go against the intent B>of Item 1., would it not? B>Robin Barker wrote: B>> Let us go back to the most common examples: opening pre-empts and B>jump B>> overcalls. B>> B>> Pair A play unsound pre-empts (0-9 5+ card suit) if opponent play B>> take-out doubles in defence to pre-empts and sound pre-empts (6-10 B>6/7 B>> card suit) if opponents play penalty doubles in defence to B>pre-empts. B>> B>This is legal, because takeout doubles are a convention. Pair A plays B>sound preempts, but if opponents use takeout doubles their counter is B>to use light preempts. But wait! The opponents can in turn switch to B>penalty doubles, because countermeasures against preemptive bids can B>be altered. B>However, it is not a paradox. Whoever speaks first has the right of B>way. This leads to the ridiculous situation in which each side insists B>on seeing the other side's cc before disclosing their methods. And B>what if the cc says we play a against b, but c against d, but the B>other cc says we play b against c and d against a? Paradox regained. B>> Pair B play penalty doubles of pre-empts which may be no HCP or a 5 B>> card suit and play take-out doubles of pre-empts which show some B>values B>> and a 6 card suit. B>> B>This is legal. You can vary your defenses to preemptive or B>conventional bids. The ACBL does not mention that defenses against B>1NT openings can be varied according to their strength, but surely B>this is so. I play business doubles against weak notrumps and B>conventional double (C+D+H or D+H or H) against strong notrumps. Going B>back to item 1., is this varying my system during the game or is it an B>unvarying conditional policy? B>> When pair A play pair B, pair A has no useful agreement as to B>> pre-empting style. B>> B>A pair can have only one preempting style, unless varying it as a B>countermeasure to an opposing convention or preemptive bid. Does that B>apply to takeout doubles of preempts? I don't know. Going by item 5., B>it looks like we have a paradox. B>> Perhaps pair A could agree that "if the opponents defence to B>pre-empts B>> depends on our pre-empting style then we play the minimum B>requirements B>> such that opponent's double is TO" (i.e. 1+ and 6 card suit, B>above). B>> Is that legal and complete? B>I think a lawyer could argue that the regulation against changing B>system (preemptive style, in this case) takes precedence over the rule B>that says you can vary countermeasures against conventions (takeout B>double, in this case), making this policy illegal. B>> B>> You get the same situation by replacing "pre-empts" by "jump B>overcalls" B>Or 1NT openings, or simple overcalls, or any bid that has different B>ranges for different partnerships. B>> and "take-out doubles" by "negative doubles". B>>. B>Or any conventional call. B>If all this makes me appear to be confused on the issue, it's no B>wonder, because I *am* confused. B>I think maybe the answer should be that initial actions cannot be B>changed based on opposing defenses that come subsequent to those B>actions, even if the countermeasures are conventional. The "counter" B>in "countermeasures" implies subsequent action, not preceding action. B>A counterpunch in boxing comes after an opponent's swing, not before. B>Tentative conclusions: B>Item 1. is okay, but must add that a fixed variation in system that B>occurs after an opposing conventional call, or after any opposing call B>if it is based on the strength of that call, does not constitute a B>change in system. A fixed variation in system that is based on the B>opponnents' general system may include initial actions. B>(So you can use light opening preempts against a Big Club system, but B>sound preempts normally) B>Item 5 should be changed to read: B>5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their B>opponents' convention card and as a consequence adopt any agreement B>that was not previously established, provided it complies with Item 1. B>Something like that. It means you can't change any such new agreement B>during the rest of the session. B>Paradox lost? B>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 02:08:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:08:26 +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 CAA29367 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:08:15 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA07516 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 16:07:37 GMT Message-ID: <37330FE5.7792D8ED@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 18:08:05 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id QAA07516 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nico Kaptein a =E9crit : > It seems to me that you are getting tangled into a fake discussion. > > It is simply not possible (other than not allowed) to adjust bid N to a= to-be-expected bid N 1 in the way described by Richard. If rho opens, an= d opps play penalty doubles over weak jump bids, and negative doubles ove= r strong jumps, then that is it. It is possible (we have seen examples) and (unfortunately) not disallowed. > > > You can decide to play strong or weak jump shifts, but there is no chic= ken and egg problem here. > > You are not varying your system at N, as Richard claims, but just adjus= ting your system's defence to opp's system. Since both parties can do tha= t, and cannot change their system after being informed of the changed def= ense, nothing can go wrong. > > Nico > > <<< Richard Willey 5/ 7 5:19p >>> > >> You are suggesting that a player can chose his action at > round > >> "N" in the game based on your opponent's strategies at stage > N i > > >I argued against that idea, actually, but made an exception > with > >regard to systems, as opposed to individual conventions or > treatments. > > ... > > >Well, I was talking about entire systems, not just individual > >conventions or treatments. Maybe it is the same, I don't know. > > I would argue that since a bidding system is comprised of a > large number > of inter-related conventions and treatments, you can not change > an > individual component of the system without changing the system. > > >Thinking more on this (which I should have done before), it > seems to > >me I can play light overcalls against negative doublers and > sound > >overcalls against penalty doublers, which is only common sense. > That > >would be varying my system at N because of N 1, but it feels > right > >that I should be able to do this. I play penalty doubles over > light > >overcalls and negative doubles over sound overcalls (K/S-like, > and > >seemingly extinct), so we indeed have a chicken & egg situatio= n > if > >both pairs have these understandings on their cc. > > Your "common sense" is extremely different than mine. > To me, it does not "feel right" that you should be allowed to vary your > system at stage N in response to the opponent's choice of actions at > stage N i. > This is what is causing the entire "Chicken and the Egg" problem in the > first place. > > There are two possible ways to avoid the Chicken and the Egg problem. > > One method is to change startegy selection into a simultaneous game. > Each player simultaneously discloses their choice of strategy. > Having declarer their strategy, each player is required to play > according to it during the actual bidding process. > > As a logical analogy, the children's game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors" is > played this way. In children's game, rock only means rock; in bridge, the corresponding o= bject is (unfortunately) a more complicated one which can be conditionall= y defined, for example something like: "rock if against scissors or paper= if against rock" > > > As an alternative, the selection of bidding strategies can be modeled a= s > a multi-stage game. > In this version, once a player has selected their strategy during stage > N of the game, they > must not be allowed to change it, or, as we all know, the entire system > collapses down to an endless loop. Unfortunately, we saw it's possible, with the current regulations, to com= e to an endless loop without having to change the definition of the strat= egy. > > > To go back to the ACBL regulations that you were quoting > > >5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their > >opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against their > >opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not vary > >their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. > > It seems clear to me at least that the intent of the second sentence is > to forbid players > from altering their system in response to changes in the opponent's > methods. In the problematic case, the player doesn't alter or vary his system aft= er reviewing the opponent's one. He doesn't modify anything on his CC whi= ch he has written in advance; he has only worded it with a few "if"s but = the regulatory body has omitted to regulate the use of if. JP Rocafort > > > Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 02:14:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:14:25 +1000 Received: from hotmail.com (f81.hotmail.com [207.82.250.187]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA29403 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:14:20 +1000 Received: (qmail 26706 invoked by uid 0); 7 May 1999 16:15:14 -0000 Message-ID: <19990507161514.26705.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 07 May 1999 09:15:14 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 09:15:14 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > >A local expert asked them[Meckstroth/Rodwell] about this, and got the >answer that the >secrecy is because they don't want weak players to adopt their >methods, which could be disastrous for a pair that is not good enough >to handle them. Should we admire their altruism? They are clearly Princes amongst Men, and not in the slightest bit patronising... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 02:29:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:29:44 +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 CAA29447 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:28:38 +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 10fnUF-000K4p-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 16:28:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 17:26:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch In-Reply-To: <01be97ea$294ce800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01be97ea$294ce800$LocalHost@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >-----Original Message----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:33 PM >Subject: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch > > >>Cross posted to rgb >> >>Particularly for those who care about such things: >> >>Probst's Rule for Seating Strategy with imperfect arrow switching: >> >>If more than one eighth of the rounds are switched, sit half the number >>of tables away from the strongest pair in the room in the same line as >>them. It's worth up to 2% >> >>Failing which, sit as close as possible to the weakest pair, making sure >>you switch the same boards as they do. That's worth up to 2% >> >>Combine both if you can. Enjoy! >> >> Cheers John >> >>Article to be posted on DWS's web-site shortly > >Needing 3.7% to overtake Sergey in the fight for the Fifth Friday Trophy I >think all advice is to be heeded. > >Usually there are 9/10 tables playing 8/9 rounds at 3 ( depending on the >time the British Legion is closing). A/S is one or two rounds at the end. >The strongest pair against us (Annie and Eric) are lying third. They always >sit N/S at table one. I understand that you are telling me to sit N/S at >table 5 and ensure N/S table 4 and 6 are weak. > >This is easy, but won't it help Annie and Eric as well? > >Cheers >Anne > > You should get strong pairs to sit at table 2 and table 9 NS, a weak pair at table 5 EW and ensure there are *two* rounds of switch. This, should give you about 1% overall :)) If there's only one round of switch then the movement is pretty good if you play 8 or 9 rounds, and seating strategies don't do much. To get the full 3.7% you need to switch slightly fewer than half the rounds :)) 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 May 8 02:30:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:30:41 +1000 Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29463 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:30:33 +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 JAA02951; Fri, 7 May 1999 09:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000b01be98a6$e7e09200$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: Pass Over a Redouble Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 09:30:17 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > The most common agreement for a pass over a redouble of a takeout > double is that it is to play except if the passer is under the original > bidder at the one level. > > That is, 1D-X-XX-P and 1D-1S-X-XX-P are not for penalty (although > the second is for penalty if the double was penalty). 1NT-X-XX-P is > ambiguous, but I think it is usually not for penalty if the double > showed a one-suited hand (although it is for penalty if the double > was penalty). > > However, 1D-P-P-X-XX-P is for penalty. > > At higher levels, the pass is always for penalty unless that is > logically impossible. 2S-X-XX-P is for penalty; 1H-P-2H-P-P-X-XX-P > should not be because the balancing doubler denied the values for a > normal takeout double. Marvin French wrote: All this is reasonable, but for Alert purposes (as in many cases) we need a simple rule: Alert a pass over a natural redouble of a takeout or negative double if it is to play. If the redouble is not natural, or is so often a bluff that partner will not take it seriously, it is Alertable. When it is so Alerted, as S. O. S. or whatever, then a pass "to play" is not Alertable. This does not apply if the double was not pure takeout (e.g., snapdragon) or pure negative (e.g., "cards"), whereupon the pass is assumed to be natural, a desire to play the redoubled contract. Later: I have received a reply from Gary Blaiss of the ACBL. His opinion is that *all* passes to play over a redouble of *any* non-penalty double should be Alertable. He has referred this matter to the Competitions and Conventions Committee to see if they agree. That is certainly a simple rule to remember. Any time it goes Double-Redouble-Pass and the double was non-penalty (e.g., takeout, card-showing, snapdragon, action), then a pass is Alertable if it indicates a desire to play the redoubled contract. If the double is pure penalty, then of course the pass is not Alertable. Moves toward having simple easily-remembered rules are always welcome, IMO, even when some of the required Alerts seem unnecessary or illogical. If this rule becomes official, then my recap of the Alert regulations will be changed to read: ALERT -- A pass over an opposing redouble of any non-penalty double, if the pass conveys a desire to play the redoubled contract. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 02:34:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:34:18 +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 CAA29480 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 02:34:08 +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 10fnZY-0001FX-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 16:34:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 17:32:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch In-Reply-To: <3732B70F.35E38485@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3732B70F.35E38485@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Anne Jones wrote: >> >> > >> >Probst's Rule for Seating Strategy with imperfect arrow switching: >> > >> >> Needing 3.7% to overtake Sergey in the fight for the Fifth Friday Trophy I >> think all advice is to be heeded. >> >> Usually there are 9/10 tables playing 8/9 rounds at 3 ( depending on the >> time the British Legion is closing). A/S is one or two rounds at the end. >> The strongest pair against us (Annie and Eric) are lying third. They always >> sit N/S at table one. I understand that you are telling me to sit N/S at >> table 5 and ensure N/S table 4 and 6 are weak. >> >> This is easy, but won't it help Annie and Eric as well? >> > >As responsible for the fifth friday I strongly object to >these tactics! > >But note one thing : John's strategies are only for >British-style (almost wrote English there - sorry AnnY, and >the day after the first Welsh elections as well !) switching >habits. > >If you want to win at the fifth friday, your best tactic >seems to me to get a whole bunch of beginners to sit >East-West against your North-South! NoNoNo, as long as one eighth of the rounds are switched it doesn't matter much who sits where as the competition between the two lines is equalised. > >I'm sure that's not what SergeY does in Omsk !?! > >There is of course another strategy. Go play in the Acol on >thursday (anonymously) and then in Bristol or Penarth on >Friday. So how come the winners played on Thursdagje?? I guess they must have had the hands faxed in from NZ, (where one could get at the made up boards early in the morning of the day they're to be played) -- 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 May 8 03:22:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 03:22:08 +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 DAA29586 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 03:21:58 +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 SAA29645 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 18:21:54 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA07841 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 18:21:48 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 07 May 1999 17:21:48 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA12544 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 18:21:47 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 18:21:47 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199905071721.SAA12544@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Pass Over a Redouble Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I didn't see the email from David Grabiner Marvin French refers to, (Subject: Pass Over a Redouble)?; can someone repost it please. Robin Marvin French wrote: > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Fri May 7 18:04:51 1999 > From: "Marvin L. French" > To: , > Subject: Pass Over a Redouble > Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 09:30:17 -0700 > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Content-Length: 2378 > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > > The most common agreement for a pass over a redouble of a takeout > > double is that it is to play except if the passer is under the > original > > bidder at the one level. > > > [snip] -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 04:13:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 04:13:28 +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 EAA29747 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 04:13:20 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA29418; Fri, 7 May 1999 13:12:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.75) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029238; Fri May 7 13:11:55 1999 Received: by har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE9893.6AC59260@har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com>; Fri, 7 May 1999 14:10:53 -0400 Message-ID: <01BE9893.6AC59260@har-pa2-11.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Norman Scorbie'" Subject: RE: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 14:08:56 -0400 Encoding: 26 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk But with weak bladders? ---------- From: Norman Scorbie[SMTP:normanscorbie@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 07, 1999 12:15 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Marvin L. French wrote: > >A local expert asked them[Meckstroth/Rodwell] about this, and got the >answer that the >secrecy is because they don't want weak players to adopt their >methods, which could be disastrous for a pair that is not good enough >to handle them. Should we admire their altruism? They are clearly Princes amongst Men, and not in the slightest bit patronising... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 04:49:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 04:49:02 +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 EAA29843 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 04:48:55 +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 OAA12886 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 14:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 14:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905071848.OAA28521@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199905071721.SAA12544@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> (message from Robin Barker on Fri, 7 May 1999 18:21:47 +0100 (BST)) Subject: Re: Pass Over a Redouble Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes: > I didn't see the email from David Grabiner Marvin French refers to, > (Subject: Pass Over a Redouble)?; can someone repost it please. Marvin posted it in its entirety; I sent it to him rather than to the list by mistake. -- 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 May 8 05:44:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 05:44:10 +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 FAA00163 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 05:44:04 +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 PAA18765 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 15:42:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990507154455.006e0d34@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 15:44:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: FULL DISC In-Reply-To: <9905070827.0BVI000@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:27 AM 5/7/99, r.pewick wrote: >It seems that a pair should be entitled to a straightforward answer to the >question 'What is the agreement to XXX?' > >Therefore, if a pair has agreements that depend upon the opponent's >defensive agreement[s] then it is imperative that they have definitive >agreements for when the opponents have conditional defenses. > >This implies that a regulation is in order forbidding agreements conditional >on the opponent's defenses, if they do not include definitive agreements for >when opponents have conditional defenses. And violation of the regulation >ought to carry severe penalties. I see nothing inherently wrong with the ACBL's approach (as I understand it) to this problem. Conditional agreements are entirely permissible. If the opposing pairs' conditional agreements conflict, creating the chicken-and-egg problem, the pair whose agreement pertains to the earlier bid in the auction must make a specific determination, and the other pair must stick to their conditional agreement. There's no need to make broad rules that prevent the problem from coming up (and may have negative or unpredictable side-effects). The least disruptive (to common practice) way to deal with the problem is to make a conflict-resolving rule that matters only when there's a conflict. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 06:27:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 06:27:49 +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 GAA00394 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 06:27:41 +1000 Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990507202450.QKIU6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 13:24:50 -0700 Message-ID: <37334D32.5458E830@home.com> Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 13:29:38 -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: Swedish LK ruling References: <3.0.16.19990504170327.34873b88@pop3.iag.net> <372F6F35.CEF8A639@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > It would be interesting to know the actual detailed deliberations. I'll > try to ask. I did ask the swedish LC (LK in swedish) to explain: 1) The basis for giving NS only +4 rather than +6 imps 2) The basis for adjusting the award depending on the outcome of the overall match. Btw, the result at the other table was EW +140 so the Imp awards should be seen in that light. H-O Hallen was kind enough to provide the following very prompt (same day) response: "LK bases it's ruling on L12C2, L12C3 and L16A2. 1) L16A2 says that play shall continue and that the TD awards an adjusted score if the infraction has lead to damage. The continued play caused part of the damage. Take a more drastical case where EW gets to 6S which NS let make by not cashing their obvious winners. Then it is other factors than the infraction that caused the damage. 2) This was a KO match. LK awarded NS +4 imp and EW -6 imp. If this would have lead to *both* teams losing the match by 1 imp, LK awarded the alternative +5/-5 imp. As it happened the NS team lost by 3 imps and the EW team won by 1 imp, so the alternative wasn't needed. L12C3 was used here." I have some comments on this: a) It seems the LC did *not* know the end-result when ruling, and excercised some foresight in already covering the potential tie-breaker situation b4 they could be compromised, accused of favouritism, or whatever. It is maybe like giving NS +4.49 imp rather than just +4. b) I think the actual situation is different from the "drastic" example in that even with best defense the best NS could get was -140 (a normal result rather than the great +110 they "deserved") whereas in the 6S example normal defense would have yielded 6S-1, a great result they could hardly have improved upon absent the infraction. c) They specifically used L12C3, and those of us from jurisdictions where it is not in use will have to learn to judge such rulings in that light. They appear to have judged that 2 imp worth of damage (-200 instead of -140) was "subsequent" rather than "consequent", thus finding it "equitable" to reduce the award twds NOS by that amount. No doubt some will use this to show the dangers of L12C3. On the other side we just had a posting from Steve Willner (I believe) which virtually cried-out for having L12C3 available. I am not taking sides here, merely mentioning that whether or not one agrees with this ruling, one can presumably not deem it "illegal" in L12C3-land. N.B.: Of course based on L12C2 one can only award 2H= to both sides, since no other result is "at all probable", let alone "likely", absent the infraction. What would an ACBL committee have done if they felt NS didn't "deserve" full protection - give EW -110 and NS Avg+ (+3 imp)? If so, would that be more "equitable"? It certainly wouldn't be more "legal"! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 07:46:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 07:46:05 +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 HAA00917 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 07:45:55 +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 RAA22002 for ; Fri, 7 May 1999 17:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA20557 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 May 1999 17:46:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 17:46:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905072146.RAA20557@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Swedish LK ruling (L12C3) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jan Kamras > No doubt some will use this to show the dangers of L12C3. On the other > side we just had a posting from Steve Willner (I believe) which > virtually cried-out for having L12C3 available. Do you mean the "mistaken ruling case," where there were six or seven possible outcomes? My own view is that L12C2 is just fine for cases with many reasonable outcomes. Picking the second or third best and (usually) second worst can't be terribly far from equity. Where L12C3 is needed, if at all, is where there are two or at most three possible outcomes with wildly different scores for each. Now instead of assigning an extreme result based on a very close judgment of probabilities, you can give something reflecting a share of each outcome. My own opinion (as a loyal American) is that if you are going to give this authority, it ought to be under strict guidelines as to how and when it is used. I would prefer the guidelines to be written into L12C3, but having them provided by ZA, NA, or SO would be good enough. Reasonable people can (and do!) differ on virtually all of the above, as we have seen so clearly here on BLML. If Jan meant some other case, I apologize for boring everybody. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 8 11:38:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 11:38:46 +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 LAA01276 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 11:38:39 +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 10fw4W-0008g1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 May 1999 01:38:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 01:36:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Swedish LK ruling References: <3.0.16.19990504170327.34873b88@pop3.iag.net> <372F6F35.CEF8A639@home.com> <37334D32.5458E830@home.com> In-Reply-To: <37334D32.5458E830@home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >2) This was a KO match. LK awarded NS +4 imp and EW -6 imp. If this >would have lead to *both* teams losing the match by 1 imp, LK awarded >the alternative +5/-5 imp. As it happened the NS team lost by 3 imps and >the EW team won by 1 imp, so the alternative wasn't needed. L12C3 was >used here." How can both sides lose by 1 imp? Does not L86B cover 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 Sat May 8 20:25:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 May 1999 20:25:48 +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 UAA01986 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 20:25:43 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME ([203.96.101.229]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990508102714.KVVD7357045.mta2-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 22:27:14 +1200 Message-ID: <37351C69.563E@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 22:26:01 -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: Seating Strategy for imperfect arrow switch References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > So how come the winners played on Thursdagje?? I guess they must have > had the hands faxed in from NZ, (where one could get at the made up > boards early in the morning of the day they're to be played) Or maybe they just played better!! From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 9 00:43:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 May 1999 00:43:45 +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 AAA04758 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 00:43:39 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-216.uunet.be [194.7.9.216]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA05361 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 16:43:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <373407C9.730C17A2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 11:45:45 +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: Chicken-and-Egg (was: Full disclosure before-the-fact) References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530DE4@MAIL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To recap : System A is : we play weak overcalls against negative doublers, and strong overcalls against penalty doublers System B is : we play penalty doubles over weak overcalls, and negative doubles over strong overcalls. Two stories can happen : Nothing is said before the auction, and player B makes a call. Player A wants to make an overcall. He consults the CC and notices B's agreement. He makes his overcall. Partner B asks "weak or strng ?". Partner A also consults the CC, notices the agreement, and says "I don't know, we have not discussed this situation". Do tell me something, says B, and A volunteers something. What has been the problem ? Only that A's system is incomplete : they have not discussed this particular situation and shall suffer the consequences, exactly as if you forget to agree Blackwood responses. You have to fall back on something, and sometimes this turns against you. Second story : A does check the CC before the play, and notices B's agreement. A now agree on one or the other and when the overcall is questioned, they can tell this to B, who can apply his system. No need to be changing systems back and forth ! No chicken and eggs whatsoever. A simply have an (acceptable) agreement which in their original form is incomplete. They have the opportunity to make it complete. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 9 07:20:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 May 1999 07:20:49 +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 HAA05984 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 07:20:43 +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 <19990508212036.UXM6760.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 14:20:36 -0700 Message-ID: <3734ABC4.DAA9D5FB@home.com> Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 14:25:24 -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: Swedish LK ruling References: <3.0.16.19990504170327.34873b88@pop3.iag.net> <372F6F35.CEF8A639@home.com> <37334D32.5458E830@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jan Kamras wrote: > > >2) This was a KO match. LK awarded NS +4 imp and EW -6 imp. If this > >would have lead to *both* teams losing the match by 1 imp, LK awarded > >the alternative +5/-5 imp. As it happened the NS team lost by 3 imps and > >the EW team won by 1 imp, so the alternative wasn't needed. L12C3 was > >used here." Just a formality but, although I "wrote" the above, it was part of the quote of what Hallen wrote. > How can both sides lose by 1 imp? Well, with their ruling 2 imps are "missing" from the total. Prior to that the score might have been 65-64 to the NS team, EW losing by 1. After the 2 are deducted from NS, they too lose by 1. Presumably the LK could have handled the tie-breaker by initially awarding instead +5/-6, but it seems they wanted to reflect that they specifically considered NS responsible for the 2 imps from -140 to -200. Anyway, I'm purely guessing here. Lacking specific guidelines, an AC can do whatever they want, however they want to do it, under L12C3 as long as it perceives it equitable. > Does not L86B cover this? I'm not sure. It says to average the scores on that board and apply it to both sides for that board (however that is done between -110 and +4 imp), but the match overall can still end in a tie after that, can't it? Iow, L86B doesn not seem to be a "tie-breaker" law. What says HdW? From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 9 08:08:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 May 1999 08:08:50 +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 IAA06027 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 08:08:44 +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 SAA07534 for ; Sat, 8 May 1999 18:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 18:08:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905082208.SAA05970@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3734ABC4.DAA9D5FB@home.com> (message from Jan Kamras on Sat, 08 May 1999 14:25:24 -0700) Subject: Re: Swedish LK ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras writes: > David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Jan Kamras wrote: >> >> >2) This was a KO match. LK awarded NS +4 imp and EW -6 imp. If this >> >would have lead to *both* teams losing the match by 1 imp, LK awarded >> >the alternative +5/-5 imp. As it happened the NS team lost by 3 imps and >> >the EW team won by 1 imp, so the alternative wasn't needed. L12C3 was >> >used here." > Just a formality but, although I "wrote" the above, it was part of the > quote of what Hallen wrote. >> How can both sides lose by 1 imp? >> Does not L86B cover this? > I'm not sure. It says to average the scores on that board and apply it > to both sides for that board (however that is done between -110 and +4 > imp), but the match overall can still end in a tie after that, can't it? > Iow, L86B doesn not seem to be a "tie-breaker" law. What says HdW? Law 86B says that scores should be averaged if the scores of "contestants" do not balance, and a "contestant" is a team, not a pair. Thus the score should have been +5/-5. because one team scored +4 IMPs, and the other team scored -6. I think that the committee was trying to say that Law 86B should be applied if necessary; the actual ruling was technically in violation of Law 86B because it did not balance, but the committee's intention was clear. -- 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 May 9 11:55:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 May 1999 11:55:58 +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 LAA06339 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 11:55:52 +1000 Received: from modem62.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.190] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10gIoZ-0005nD-00; Sun, 9 May 1999 02:55:36 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 02:54:27 +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 Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact > Date: 07 May 1999 02:50 > > Grattan wrote [under a pseudonym]: > > --------------------------- \x/ ---------------------------- > David said > > I think the above post from Grattan, and other posts in this and > similar threads, confuses two matters: > > [1] What the Law requires in the way of disclosure, which is actually > what the RA decides. > > [2] What we feel that ought to be required in the way of disclosure. > > Perhaps the Law should be more specific in matters of disclosure? > +++ I thought I had distinguished where I ceased to assert Law and was expressing opinion. Sorry if you were confused. I do feel certain specific requirements should be a matter of Law. In particular a requirement that 'uncommon partnership agreements which demonstrably call for agreed countermeasures' (wording to be settled) shall be disclosed at a time when such countermeasures can be agreed. I consider it beyond doubt that the regulations of the WBF are explicit in requiring the standards of disclosure I have suggested. Additionally, most major RAs require sepcial attention drawn to obscure arrangements and that covers most of what I was saying. However, I think you should have your discussion again with your 'someone'. Law 40B disallows the use of anything opponents may not reasonably be expected to understand unless it is disclosed. If a channel for its disclosure is not found the law forbids its use. The Law does not say 'unless the regulations do not provide for disclosure' - it says you should use the methods laid down in order to disclose and the essential requirement of the law is disclosure. You may be aware that the WBF has often used the device of limiting the room for disclosure in order to inhibit use or to restrict the number of arrangements a pair may agree and if a pair is damaged by what is not disclosed, and is not reasonably to be understood by opponents, there is redress. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 9 13:22:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA06479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 May 1999 13:22:30 +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 NAA06474 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 13:22:24 +1000 Received: from modem3.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.3] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10gKAT-0005gS-00; Sun, 9 May 1999 04:22:18 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Full disclosure - perhaps better titled: "Disclosure fully and freely available". Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 04:21:20 +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: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact > Date: 07 May 1999 16:17 > > Thank you, David. > > I believe [2] is the question of greater interest. In particular, is > it possible to write regulations that a) satisfy our requirement of > full disclosure, +++ Law 40 demands that certain agreements be 'disclosed'. The Law does not use the word 'full' here because disclosure is an absolute - things are either disclosed or they are not. Reinforcing this Law 75 calls for all special agreements to be "fully and freely available to the opponents" and I suggest compliance with this means, for example, that they must be in view in detail before the auction commences If they cannot and do not damage opponents in ignorance of them, the point need not be pursued closely- until there is damage to show that the users have misjudged the matter. In principle the inferences arising out of special agreements are not "drawn from general knowledge and experience"; we have no record of any exceptions but I imagine one could construct an aberration from principle. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 9 22:27:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 May 1999 22:27:13 +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 WAA06985 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 22:27:06 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-110.uunet.be [194.7.9.110]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16762 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 14:26:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37355CEB.E8C7845A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 12:01:15 +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: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) References: <3.0.16.19990504170327.34873b88@pop3.iag.net> <372F6F35.CEF8A639@home.com> <37334D32.5458E830@home.com> <3734ABC4.DAA9D5FB@home.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was not actively involved in that thread, but I do read (sometimes not very attentively) every message, and then I saw my initials : Jan Kamras wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > How can both sides lose by 1 imp? > > Well, with their ruling 2 imps are "missing" from the total. Prior to > that the score might have been 65-64 to the NS team, EW losing by 1. > After the 2 are deducted from NS, they too lose by 1. Presumably the LK > could have handled the tie-breaker by initially awarding instead +5/-6, > but it seems they wanted to reflect that they specifically considered NS > responsible for the 2 imps from -140 to -200. Anyway, I'm purely > guessing here. Lacking specific guidelines, an AC can do whatever they > want, however they want to do it, under L12C3 as long as it perceives it > equitable. > > > Does not L86B cover this? > > I'm not sure. It says to average the scores on that board and apply it > to both sides for that board (however that is done between -110 and +4 > imp), but the match overall can still end in a tie after that, can't it? > Iow, L86B doesn not seem to be a "tie-breaker" law. What says HdW? First of all, I like the idea of the AC attributing a tie-breaker score just in case. They could do so in several ways, such as awarding an artificial score containing 1/3 of an IMP. (not 1/2 - that might create a tie in stead !) With knock-out team play it is possible for both teams to end up equal. Especially if a result is contested after the fact, it is quite likely that scores are almost equal to begin with. When the AC decides in favour of the appealing side, it can influence the result enormously. It is of course best for the AC not to know the exact order of the difference, and awarding something which turns out as +1.3 IMPs seems a good way of telling that it is not the AC who decided the outcome of the match, only of that one deal. AS for L86B, it seems to me that this is just the same as saying that if team A loses the match by 1 IMP, and B loses by 3 IMPs, the result of the one board should not be given as both negative, but averageing. So in that case A wins by 1, B loses by 1. But that is not a tie-breaker. If both teams lose by 2, then that turns by L86B into a draw. By awarding a specific score, the AC are saying that in the event of a draw, they declare A or B the winner. If this is not a ground-shattering contribution, then blame it on whomever asked me to contribute in the first place. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 02:40:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 02:40:13 +1000 Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09826 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 02:40:07 +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 JAA25230; Sun, 9 May 1999 09:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010d01be9a3a$96cf47e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: Full disclosure before the fact Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 09:39:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 believe this thread was begun in regard to a case where a pair played that a pass over a redoubled non-penalty double was not "to play," but merely left the next action up to partner. We all know that 1D-Dbl-Rdbl-Pass does not show a desire to play the redoubled contract (for most, anyway), and is therefore a convention. Disclosable? Implicitly, not explicitly. But what about other situations? ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss has given me his opinion that ACBLers should Alert *any* such pass if it is "to play," even when logic would sometimes say it must be "to play." In the interest of simplicity, there is one simple rule: If a non-penalty double is redoubled, a pass "to play," is Alertable. Neat, no complications. Now, the non-committal pass becomes the "understood" approach for everyone, no need to explicitly disclose it, just like takeout doubles of natural one-level suit openings. .But what about the pair who agree that some or all of such passes are "to play," how do they disclose that? There is no box on the cc to indicate this, but it must be disclosed "before the fact" so that opponents will know about it. The answer is that Alertable partnership understandings that must be known "before the fact" by opponents should be pre-Alerted before the round or session starts: "Our passes of redoubles always indicate a desire to play the redoubled contract," or something similar. Putting such things on the cc is okay, but not sufficient. No one would think to look for a scribbled note about this matter, and there is no pre-printed place for it. The ACBL requires a pre-Alert as "an early warning system of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare." Perhaps this should be revised to eliminate the word "unusual," so that it would include any Alertable agreements that need to be disclosed "before the fact," unusual or not. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Off to a regional in Shreveport, Louisiana, all next week and will be *incommunicado* for a while. Stop cheering! From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 03:18:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 03:18:49 +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 DAA09896 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 03:18:39 +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 NAA22421; Sun, 9 May 1999 13:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 13:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905091718.NAA16872@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, john.strauch@juno.com In-reply-to: <010d01be9a3a$96cf47e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Full disclosure before the fact Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin French writes: > The answer is that Alertable partnership understandings that must be > known "before the fact" by opponents should be pre-Alerted before the > round or session starts: "Our passes of redoubles always indicate a > desire to play the redoubled contract," or something similar. Why should this pre-Alerted? The normal reasons for before-the-fact disclosure are to allow opponents to prepare a defense (Multi 2D) or to avoid confusion and questions during the bidding (system varies by seat or vulnerability). A penalty pass after a redouble of a takeout double, on an auction such as 2H-X-XX-P, does not fit either criterion; the opponents should not be allowed to either bid 2H or redouble with different hands depending on whether the pass is for penalty. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 04:35:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 04:35:13 +1000 Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA10038 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 04:35:07 +1000 Received: from idefix (cph13.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.13]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA04576 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 20:34:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905091834.UAA04576@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 20:35:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Steve Willner > > 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. L5B anyone? /Jens -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 05:32:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 05:32:27 +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 FAA10159 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 05:32:20 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA02364 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 15:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990509153312.0068cb14@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 15:33:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Full disclosure before the fact In-Reply-To: <010d01be9a3a$96cf47e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:39 AM 5/9/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >I believe this thread was begun in regard to a case where a pair >played that a pass over a redoubled non-penalty double was not "to >play," but merely left the next action up to partner. We all know that >1D-Dbl-Rdbl-Pass does not show a desire to play the redoubled contract >(for most, anyway), and is therefore a convention. Disclosable? >Implicitly, not explicitly. But what about other situations? > >ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss has given me his opinion >that ACBLers should Alert *any* such pass if it is "to play," even >when logic would sometimes say it must be "to play." In the interest >of simplicity, there is one simple rule: If a non-penalty double is >redoubled, a pass "to play," is Alertable. Neat, no complications. > >Now, the non-committal pass becomes the "understood" approach for >everyone, no need to explicitly disclose it, just like takeout doubles >of natural one-level suit openings. > >.But what about the pair who agree that some or all of such passes are >"to play," how do they disclose that? There is no box on the cc to >indicate this, but it must be disclosed "before the fact" so that >opponents will know about it. > >The answer is that Alertable partnership understandings that must be >known "before the fact" by opponents should be pre-Alerted before the >round or session starts: "Our passes of redoubles always indicate a >desire to play the redoubled contract," or something similar. > >Putting such things on the cc is okay, but not sufficient. No one >would think to look for a scribbled note about this matter, and there >is no pre-printed place for it. > >The ACBL requires a pre-Alert as "an early warning system of any >unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare." Perhaps >this should be revised to eliminate the word "unusual," so that it >would include any Alertable agreements that need to be disclosed >"before the fact," unusual or not. Nobody would object to pre-alerting "Our passes of redoubles always indicate a desire to play", but a pre-alert requirement combined with Mr. Blaiss's "neat, no complications" interpretation would mean "Our passes of redoubles are to play when logic says they must be to play" becomes a pre-alert as well, which is ridiculous. I think we may be pushing full disclosure a bit too far when we worry about damage from failure to adjust one's offensive methods based on lack of knowledge of the opponents' prospective defenses. If my opponents play a defense to preempts designed to punish weak preempts and I make a weak preempt and get punished, have I lost equity because I wouldn't have made such a weak preempt had I known their defensive methods? My answer is yes, I have, but I had the opportunity to protect my own equity by determining their defensive methods in advance and bidding accordingly; full disclosure doesn't burden players with the responsibility to ensure that their opponents know everything about their agreements that might affect their (the opponents') bidding. The ultimate result of saying that full disclosure does impose such a responsibility would be to say that being familiar with your opponents' bidding tendencies conveys an unfair advantage, which must be equalized by providing the same level of knowledge, through the disclosure process, to those who don't already possess it. I don't think we really want to go that far down that road. 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 May 10 05:40:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 05:40:56 +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 FAA10176 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 05:40:51 +1000 Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10gZRM-00025i-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 May 1999 21:40:45 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990509213711.00ae24b0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 21:37:11 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair In-Reply-To: <199905091834.UAA04576@isa.dknet.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:35 09-05-99 +0200, you wrote: >> From: Steve Willner > >> > 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. > >L5B anyone? > well, were the instructions of the director clear enough??? did he hand out guide cards? We all know bridge players have -when askeded about the movements- the intelligence of 4-year old mentally retarded kids (to be friendly) so if something goes wrong they use 5B and say the TD didnt give clear instructions :) anywaY i wouldnt fine the NS pair ever regards, anton >/Jens >-- >Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark >http://www.alesia.dk/ > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 05:49:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 05:49:01 +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 FAA10209 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 05:48:54 +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 10gZZ8-000Iwk-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 May 1999 19:48:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 20:14:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> David said >> >> I think the above post from Grattan, and other posts in this and >> similar threads, confuses two matters: >> >> [1] What the Law requires in the way of disclosure, which is actually >> what the RA decides. >> >> [2] What we feel that ought to be required in the way of disclosure. >> >> Perhaps the Law should be more specific in matters of disclosure? >+++ I thought I had distinguished where I ceased to assert Law and >was expressing opinion. Sorry if you were confused. > I do feel certain specific requirements should be a matter of Law. >In particular a requirement that 'uncommon partnership agreements which >demonstrably call for agreed countermeasures' (wording to be settled) shall >be disclosed at a time when such countermeasures can be agreed. >I consider it beyond doubt that the regulations of the WBF are explicit in >requiring the standards of disclosure I have suggested. Additionally, most >major RAs require sepcial attention drawn to obscure arrangements and >that covers most of what I was saying. > However, I think you should have your discussion again with >your 'someone'. Law 40B disallows the use of anything opponents may >not reasonably be expected to understand unless it is disclosed. If a >channel for its disclosure is not found the law forbids its use. The Law >does not say 'unless the regulations do not provide for disclosure' >- it says you should use the methods laid down in order to disclose and >the essential requirement of the law is disclosure. > You may be aware that the WBF has often used the device of >limiting the room for disclosure in order to inhibit use or to restrict >the number of arrangements a pair may agree and if a pair is damaged >by what is not disclosed, and is not reasonably to be understood by >opponents, there is redress. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > The example I gave did include disclosing per the regulations of the RA. I have faith in the major RAs around the world, but not everyone on this list does. RGB has some posters who are more forthright still as to their lack of faith in their own RA. What I am suggesting is that some fairly unhelpful regulation for disclosure by an RA may not be illegal. -- 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 May 10 05:49:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 05:49:19 +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 FAA10223 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 05:49:12 +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 10gZZR-000Iwi-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 May 1999 19:49:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 20:22:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Away from Wednesday MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For those of you who either enjoy my posts, or would go a long way to avoid them, I expect them to be in short supply over the coming weeks! On Wednesday I am going to Juan-les-Pins in the South of France to play in the International Congress there with a client. I return late on Tuesday, and leave the next morning for Moscow! I shall be visiting a friend, and directing in the Moscow Invitational Tournament. After returning on the Tuesday, I shall have a little rest before leaving on Friday to play in an EBU Congress in Bournemouth. I have played with the same partner the last two years: this year he messed up his arrangements, so I am playing with his wife instead - and finishing ahead of her husband will be the number one aim! I shall then return on Tuesday. -- 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 May 10 07:43:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 07:43:31 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA10463 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 07:43:25 +1000 Received: from jayapfelbaum ([12.79.47.63]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990509214250.HAHB20406@jayapfelbaum> for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 21:42:50 +0000 Message-ID: <002401be9a64$c8030200$3f2f4f0c@jayapfelbaum> From: "JApfelbaum" To: "BLML Group" Subject: General Bridge Interest Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 17:42:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 A friend told me of this URL. It is about the Bennett Murder case. Not about bridge laws, but I thought it might be of interest nevertheless. http://snopes.simplenet.com/spoons/noose/bennett.htm Jay Apfelbaum Pittsburgh, PA From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 09:04:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:04:34 +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 JAA10608 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:04:29 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.101.95]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990509230558.VXXL7357045.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 11:05:58 +1200 Message-ID: <37360913.C643786C@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:15:47 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Concession Withdrawn L71C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An appeal occurred yesterday relating to the following hand: Brd 5 KQJ874 NS VUL AJ104 DLR N 54 J 1096 52 953 62 K AQ972 Q87653 K1094 A3 KQ87 J10863 A2 North was declarer in 4H and with the lead in her hand arrived at this position: KQ87 J 54 - 10 - - - K AQ972 Q8765 K - Q J10863 2 The facts, undisputed, presented to the appeal committee by the director were that: Declarer claimed conceding *two* diamonds Declarer then tabled her hand Declarer *immediately* revised her claim - "Oh no I only need to lose 1 diamond" The director ruled two tricks to EW. We had some difficulty arriving at a ruling: L68C States that a claim should be accompanied by a statement of the order in which the cards will be played. No such statement was forthcoming at the time of the claim. L68D Allows *any player* (my emphasis) to dispute a claim or concession. Does this mean that the claimer can dispute her own claim? L70B3 Only allows for the director to here an objection from the opponents so does not seem to apply. L71C Allows for the withdrawal of an implausible concession but only if the trick cannot be lost on any normal play of the cards. I presume that such a withdrawal can be made even though the opponents have happily acquiesced in the original concession. Is a withdrawal of her concession allowed in this case? Obviously, in this case if declarer plays her spades and pitches diamonds she will automatically lose only 1 diamond. What can go wrong. Believing that she is destined to lose *two* diamonds she may instead pitch the club from dummy. Now she will have to lose two diamonds. However unless the club is pitched early she is, perhaps, likely to wake up and realize that she can pitch all but one diamond as the number of diamonds reduces on the dummy. Or believing there are two diamonds to lose she may concede them immediately. Only in this case, unless East rises in crocodile fashion with his Ace, West will win the King and is likely to return a club. Now North must cash her spades and must pitch diamonds and therefore will only lose one diamond in spite of her worst intentions. How much of this is relevant in deciding on a careless versus irrational play? North is an average Open Tournament player. East/West are an NZCBA Grand Master and an intermediate player. Does it matter who was sitting East? From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 09:12:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:12:00 +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 JAA10626 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:11:54 +1000 Received: from modem31.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.31] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10gcjc-0005dp-00; Mon, 10 May 1999 00:11:49 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 00:10:35 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The leeriest bird is the coot For not only the fall of a foot But the tock of a clock Or the scratch of a match Will impel this shy creature to scoot. =============================== > From: Jens & Bodil > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair > Date: 09 May 1999 19:35 > > > From: Steve Willner > > > > 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. > > L5B anyone? ++++ Law 5B does remove the innocence from the moving pair, but I also think 7D attaches the primary responsibility to the stationary pair - who should know what pair number they are expecting to arrive. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 09:39:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:39:13 +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 JAA10670 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:39:08 +1000 Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA11800; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:38:34 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma011660; Mon, 10 May 99 09:38:12 +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 JAA14362 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:38:11 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA10891; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:41:07 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990510092810.009b9c40@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 09:35:59 +1000 To: Bridge Laws From: Peter Newman Subject: Change of explanation: transfer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I was asked the following question by a club director. The auction goes: N E S W 1NT (X)* 2H (P) 2S * alerted and described as single suiter Before East had bid. North said sorry 2H should have been alerted as a transfer to Spades. The director was called. Now West had a hand that didn't want to compete over the likely Spade single suiter in partners hand but could compete in the other 3 suits. When the South bid was described as a transfer they wished to change their bid. The director ruled that as E hadn't bid that W could change their bid..... They did so to 3C (correctible).... Question 1: What are the prohibitions on North given that they have already accepted the transfer once with 2S? The director was a bit flustered and took North away from the table....where North now said, well actually 2H WAS natural.... Question 2: Now what? If someone would be kind enough to tell me which laws are involved I will pass on all comments to the director involved. Best Regards, Peter Newman http://nswba.com.au NSWBA - Webmaster From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 11:27:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 11:27:40 +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 LAA10889 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 11:27:33 +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 SAA01980 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 18:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003601be9a84$45cee4a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199905091718.NAA16872@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Full disclosure before the fact Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 18:23:00 -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 Grabiner writes: > Marvin French writes: > > > The answer is that Alertable partnership understandings that must be > > known "before the fact" by opponents should be pre-Alerted before the > > round or session starts: "Our passes of redoubles always indicate a > > desire to play the redoubled contract," or something similar. > > Why should this pre-Alerted? The normal reasons for before-the-fact > disclosure are to allow opponents to prepare a defense (Multi 2D) or to > avoid confusion and questions during the bidding (system varies by seat > or vulnerability). I am suggesting extending that principle to the disclosure of information that ought to be known before the fact, even if "preparations" aren't required. Wife Alice and I play penalty doubles of overcalls. This is so unusual hereabouts that I think we should have to pre-alert this agreement. We are whacking off overcalls that ought not to be made aganst us, and the overcaller is quite surprised when it goes "Double" and "Alert." Something about that doesn't seem right. > > A penalty pass after a redouble of a takeout double, on an auction such > as 2H-X-XX-P, does not fit either criterion; the opponents should not be > allowed to either bid 2H or redouble with different hands depending on > whether the pass is for penalty. > I think they are entitled to know beforehand your special partnership agreements that might affect their style of bidding. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 11:50:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 11:50:54 +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 LAA10963 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 11:50:47 +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 10gfDN-0003TN-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 01:50:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 02:45:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 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 Grattan wrote: >> L5B anyone? >++++ Law 5B does remove the innocence from the moving pair, but >I also think 7D attaches the primary responsibility to the stationary >pair - who should know what pair number they are expecting to arrive. L7D has nothing to do with pair numbers: it refers to conditions of play, and is clear from the rest of L7 that it is not referring to who the opponents are, but to the control of the board and the cards. -- 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 May 10 12:18:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 12:18:18 +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 MAA11125 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 12:18:12 +1000 Received: from modem113.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.241] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10gfdv-0000ml-00; Mon, 10 May 1999 03:18:07 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 03:16:59 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The leeriest bird is the coot For not only the fall of a foot But the tock of a clock Or the scratch of a match Will impel this shy creature to scoot. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact > Date: 09 May 1999 20:14 > > Grattan wrote: > > >> David said > >> ---------- \x/ --------- > >> > >> Perhaps the Law should be more specific in matters of disclosure? > ------ \x/ ------ > > I have faith in the major RAs around the world, but not everyone on > this list does. RGB has some posters who are more forthright still as > to their lack of faith in their own RA. > > What I am suggesting is that some fairly unhelpful regulation for > disclosure by an RA may not be illegal. > +++ Yes. Some of it will be incompetence, some of it will be by design (as with the 'unhelpful' restrictions of the WBF at times). I do not know how far we can go in the laws, however, in setting some universal minima. Not a long way.+++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 12:19:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 12:19:17 +1000 Received: from sp2n17.missouri.edu (sp2n17-t.missouri.edu [128.206.2.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA11139 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 12:19:08 +1000 Received: from [128.206.29.140] ([128.206.29.140]) by sp2n17.missouri.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA59618 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 21:18:23 -0500 X-Sender: chemrh@pop.missouri.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 21:18:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Claim and Finesse Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last month I was called to adjudicate a claim with an unrecognized trump outstanding. (Actually, no line of play was stated.) Declarer was in her hand, and she could not get out of her hand without leading a trump toward dummy. This trump lead would go through the missing trump in a position something like Q10 over the stiff J. The rest of declarer's cards were all winners and the holder of the stiff J of trumps could not ruff any of declarer's possible leads. So the question in my mind was, could declarer lose to the stiff J by any normal line of play? In view of the long discussion of the "finesse?" problem earlier, I'm not so sure my ruling that she would not lose to the stiff J might represent an incorrect conclusion. Is leading toward dummy and calling a card before LHO plays careless or irrational? (In practice, the ruling made no difference: the game was Swiss teams with win-loss scoring, and Declairer's team was losing the match no matter what the ruling was.) Robert E. Harris Columbia, Missouri, USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 12:28:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 12:28:46 +1000 Received: from sp2n17.missouri.edu (sp2n17-t.missouri.edu [128.206.2.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA11192 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 12:28:41 +1000 Received: from [128.206.29.140] ([128.206.29.140]) by sp2n17.missouri.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id VAA184630 for ; Sun, 9 May 1999 21:27:50 -0500 X-Sender: chemrh@pop.missouri.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 21:28:28 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws" From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: 73C vs 16A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hate to add to the volume of discusion on this. I think both Laws 16A and 73C are perfectly clear. "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner,..., he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that coul have been suggested by such information,..." In the 1NT whoops! case the partner has got into a Law 73C pickle if he takes any advantage that might accrue to his side. Without the remark, he has heard a 1NT bid, now he knows the field will be in 3NT and he expects to get a bad board. So he bids 6NT as what? If he thinks he might once in a hundred hands get a top and the rest of the time a zero, has he taken any advantage of the information? It seems to me he has tried to. His legitimate information is partner opened 1NT. If he passes, he is not attempting to evade the result of that misbid. Is anyone arguing that if he passes and 1NT happens to go down, he should lose the resulting top? If we think the 6NT bid is a psyhce, would he have been at all likely to make such a psyche in the absence of the whoops? I don't think so. It seems to me that the problem is all based on the phrase (Law 16A before section 1.) "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." If the "logical" were to be deleted from that phrase, the "logical" in 16A2 would clearly control in the 1NT whoops case. Robert E. Harris Columbia, Missouri Bobbsie is getting fatter again, but far under her old 18 lbs. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 17:22:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:22:11 +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 RAA11509 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:22:04 +1000 Received: from ip93.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.93]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990510072156.ECJO15766.fep4@ip93.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 09:21:56 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Change of explanation: transfer Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 07:21:56 GMT Message-ID: <373e8862.1018634@post.tele.dk> References: <4.1.19990510092810.009b9c40@sercit> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990510092810.009b9c40@sercit> 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 Mon, 10 May 1999 09:35:59 +1000 skrev Peter Newman: >single suiter in partners hand but could compete in the other 3 suits. When >the South bid was described as a transfer they wished to change their bid. >The director ruled that as E hadn't bid that W could change their bid..... Correct (21B1) >They did so to 3C (correctible).... >Question 1: What are the prohibitions on North given that they have already >accepted the transfer once with 2S? It doesn't matter that N has "accepted" anything. Law 21B2 permits N to change his bid, provided that the information from 2S does not damage EW. S now has UI (2S) and law 16 applies. (If 2S is an automatic answer, there is no UI). That N bid 2S is AI for EW. >The director was a bit flustered and took North away from the >table... The correct thing to do. >where North now said, well actually 2H WAS natural.... >Question 2: Now what? EW must be told that 2S is natural. The original bidding must stand. The "temporary" bids are AI for EW, but UI for NS. S must bid assuming that 2S is the correct answer to 2H, no matter which of N's explanations is correct. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (only in Danish) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 19:59:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA11795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 19:59:01 +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 TAA11790 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 19:58:54 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob (dialup-008.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.200]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA78752 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 10:58:17 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000d01be9acb$d7d2af20$c8307dc2@tsvecfob> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Slow Pass Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:59:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE9AD4.384765A0" 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_000A_01BE9AD4.384765A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi gang, Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS) N E S W 1D 3S 4NT P 5S P 6H P(H) P 6S P P Dbl P P P Both pairs are of international standard and agree there was a = noticeable break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid. Table result: 6SX-3 (N/S +500). 6H is unbeatable. East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of = 'insurance'. I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I judged = 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI (whether it = suggested defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance. Regards, Fearghal ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE9AD4.384765A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi gang,
 
Your opinions would be appreciated = on this=20 ruling:
 
N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS)
 
N         =20 E       =20 S           =20 W
1D       =20 3S      =20 4NT        P
5S       =20 P       =20 6H          = P(H)
P         =20 6S     =20 P           =20 P
Dbl       =20 P       =20 P           =20 P
 
Both pairs are = of=20 international standard and agree there was a = noticeable=20 break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid.
 
Table result:  6SX-3 (N/S +500).   6H = is=20 unbeatable.
 
East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a = form of=20 'insurance'.
 
 
I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S = +1430) because=20 I judged 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI = (whether it=20 suggested defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the=20 insurance.
 
Regards,
 
Fearghal
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE9AD4.384765A0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 20:04:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 20:04:11 +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 UAA11813 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 20:04:03 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob (dialup-008.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.200]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA81332 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 11:03:26 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <001801be9acc$90669380$c8307dc2@tsvecfob> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: Slow Pass Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:04:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01BE9AD4.F0875DA0" 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_0015_01BE9AD4.F0875DA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi gang, =20 Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS) =20 N E S W 1D 3S 4NT P 5S P 6H P(H) P 6S P P Dbl P P P =20 Both pairs are of international standard and agree there was a = noticeable break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid. East held: S. Q10965432 H. - D. 5 C. J1043 =20 Table result: 6SX-3 (N/S +500). 6H is unbeatable. =20 East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of = 'insurance'. =20 =20 I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I judged = 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI (whether it = suggested defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance. =20 Regards, =20 Fearghal =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BE9AD4.F0875DA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi gang,
 
Your opinions would be appreciated = on this=20 ruling:
 
N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS)
 
N         =20 E       =20 S           =20 W
1D       =20 3S      =20 4NT        P
5S       =20 P       =20 6H          = P(H)
P         =20 6S     =20 P           =20 P
Dbl       =20 P       =20 P           =20 P
 
Both pairs are = of=20 international standard and agree there was a = noticeable=20 break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid.
 
East held:    S.=20 Q10965432        H.=20 -        D.=20 5        C. J1043
 
 
Table result:  6SX-3 (N/S +500).   6H = is=20 unbeatable.
 
East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a = form of=20 'insurance'.
 
 
I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S = +1430) because=20 I judged 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI = (whether it=20 suggested defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the=20 insurance.
 
Regards,
 
Fearghal
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01BE9AD4.F0875DA0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 21:07:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 21:07:24 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA11908 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 21:07:16 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA03211 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 11:06:40 GMT Message-ID: <3736BDBE.6774B587@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 13:06:39 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Chicken-and-Egg (was: Full disclosure before-the-fact) References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530DE4@MAIL> <373407C9.730C17A2@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id LAA03211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael a =E9crit : > To recap : > > System A is : we play weak overcalls against negative > doublers, and strong overcalls against penalty doublers > > System B is : we play penalty doubles over weak overcalls, > and negative doubles over strong overcalls. > > Two stories can happen : > > Nothing is said before the auction, and player B makes a > call. Player A wants to make an overcall. He consults the > CC and notices B's agreement. > He makes his overcall. Partner B asks "weak or strng ?". Not an accurate question, to be strict; Part B should ask something like: what are your agreements? and Part A should answer the description of System A you quote above > > Partner A also consults the CC, notices the agreement, and > says "I don't know, we have not discussed this situation". > Do tell me something, says B, and A volunteers something. weak against... strong against... > > What has been the problem ? Only that A's system is > incomplete : they have not discussed this particular > situation and shall suffer the consequences, exactly as if > you forget to agree Blackwood responses. You have to fall > back on something, and sometimes this turns against you. Agreed: System A is incomplete, A has an agreement against negative doublers and against penalty doublers and has no agreement against the other players: conditionnal doublers, for example. A further question could be: is it mandatory to have agreements in some precise situations? Is it illegal to write down: "no agreement" in boxes referenced on the CC provided by the SO? On the other side, system B is also incomplete; it provides agreements only against weak and strong overcalls, not against medium, or wide-ranging overcalls nor against overcalls with no reference to overall strength, ... nor conditional overcalls. > > > Second story : A does check the CC before the play, and > notices B's agreement. A now agree on one or the other and > when the overcall is questioned, they can tell this to B, > who can apply his system. > > No need to be changing systems back and forth ! > > No chicken and eggs whatsoever. > > A simply have an (acceptable) agreement which in their > original form is incomplete. They have the opportunity to > make it complete. > Very nice if they seize this opportunity, but players who believe to have covered all the cases by anticipation, are fairly proud and certain to have complete agreements and are likely not to consult opponents'CC before the play. I still think chicken and eggs problem may happen with nowadays regulations, but not a very crucial problem. JP Rocafort > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 22:12:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 22:12:32 +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 WAA12047 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 22:12:26 +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 IAA11773 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 08:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990510081327.006e4668@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 08:13:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Claim and Finesse In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:18 PM 5/9/99 -0500, Robert wrote: >Declarer was in her hand, and she could not get out of her hand without >leading a trump toward dummy. This trump lead would go through the missing >trump in a position something like Q10 over the stiff J. The rest of >declarer's cards were all winners and the holder of the stiff J of trumps >could not ruff any of declarer's possible leads. So the question in my >mind was, could declarer lose to the stiff J by any normal line of play? >In view of the long discussion of the "finesse?" problem earlier, I'm not >so sure my ruling that she would not lose to the stiff J might represent an >incorrect conclusion. Is leading toward dummy and calling a card before >LHO plays careless or irrational? Yes, definitely. If "careless" didn't include playing the 10 from Q10 doubleton on RHO's J, it wouldn't cover anything. 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 May 10 23:16:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:16:26 +1000 Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA12229 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:16:18 +1000 Received: from p25s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.38] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10gpuY-0001CQ-00; Mon, 10 May 1999 14:15:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000801be9ae7$0313ba60$268393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 15:53:22 +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 Date: 09 May 1999 14:06 Subject: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) >I was not actively involved in that thread, but I do read >(sometimes not very attentively) every message, and then I >saw my initials : > >Jan Kamras wrote: >> >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > How can both sides lose by 1 imp? > --------- \x/ --------------- >Herman de W. >By awarding a specific score, the AC are saying that in the >event of a draw, they declare A or B the winner. > >If this is not a ground-shattering contribution, then blame >it on whomever asked me to contribute in the first place. >-- +++ It is not the task of an appeal committee to split a tie. The Conditions of Contest do that. If equity on a board means the match is tied it is then for the normal tie-splitting procedure to operate. For a committee to produce two different equities or rulings on a board is pure farce. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 23:21:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:21:14 +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 XAA12262 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:21:07 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10gpzO-000OzC-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 13:20:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:08:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claim and Finesse References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robert E. Harris wrote: >Last month I was called to adjudicate a claim with an unrecognized trump >outstanding. (Actually, no line of play was stated.) >Declarer was in her hand, and she could not get out of her hand without >leading a trump toward dummy. This trump lead would go through the missing >trump in a position something like Q10 over the stiff J. The rest of >declarer's cards were all winners and the holder of the stiff J of trumps >could not ruff any of declarer's possible leads. So the question in my >mind was, could declarer lose to the stiff J by any normal line of play? >In view of the long discussion of the "finesse?" problem earlier, I'm not >so sure my ruling that she would not lose to the stiff J might represent an >incorrect conclusion. Is leading toward dummy and calling a card before >LHO plays careless or irrational? It is irrational. The standards are different. An irrational play is not one that is never made [ask my partner!]. It is one that is totally unjustifiable with any commonsense. For example, how do you play the following holding, which I remember Betty Fox misplaying against me 30 years ago: Qxx AK98xx The correct play is to cash the queen because you can pick up JTxx in the North hand. Betty Fox was a pretty reasonable player but she played small to the king. She was somewhat irascible, and having her partner [GCH Fox, known as Foxy] point out that the queen first was correct annoyed her - especially the *fourth* time he mentioned it. To play small to the king or ace first is *careless*: to duck in both hands [needing six tricks] is *irrational*. No doubt someone would do it though, calling for a wrong card perhaps. -- 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 May 10 23:40:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:40:20 +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 XAA12315 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:40:14 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-27.uunet.be [194.7.13.27]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24263 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 15:40:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37369FB7.A947074@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 10:58:31 +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: Claim and Finesse References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Robert E. Harris" wrote: > > So the question in my > mind was, could declarer lose to the stiff J by any normal line of play? > In view of the long discussion of the "finesse?" problem earlier, I'm not > so sure my ruling that she would not lose to the stiff J might represent an > incorrect conclusion. Is leading toward dummy and calling a card before > LHO plays careless or irrational? Of course, if that is not irrational, I don't know what is. It is well established that a player, when fictitiously playing (*) after a claim, cannot fail to see the discards, and is allowed to act upon them in the simple cases such as overruffing. (*) I know there is no play after a claim, but we have to call it something don't we ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 23:40:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:40:30 +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 XAA12322 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:40:24 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-27.uunet.be [194.7.13.27]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA24295 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 15:40:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3736A184.D30E6EB7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:06:12 +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: Concession Withdrawn L71C References: <37360913.C643786C@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: > > An appeal occurred yesterday relating to the following hand: > > > North was declarer in 4H and with the lead in her hand arrived at this > position: > > KQ87 > J > 54 > - > 10 - > - - > K AQ972 > Q8765 K > - > Q > J10863 > 2 > > The facts, undisputed, presented to the appeal committee by the director > were that: > > Declarer claimed conceding *two* diamonds > Declarer then tabled her hand > Declarer *immediately* revised her claim - "Oh no I only need to lose 1 > diamond" > There is only one thing to decide here. What is the claim ? If we are harsh and stick claimer to his first statement, then two tricks are awarded to EW. Since the correction came immediately, I feel more towards allowing the whole thing to be considered a claim for one losing trick. Of course the claim for one loser is a valid one. And also of course the revised claim shall not be awarded, as there are many "normal" lines that lead to the loss of only one trick. As a similar example, I would accept from North a statement like "play is over, let's see, how many tricks do I need to give, well, I'll play like this and that and that gives you ... one trick". The only thing that is different to this example is that north started by saying two tricks and only then played the hand. I am rather large in these circumstances but will bow to local practice if those are more harsh. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 10 23:45:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA12348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:45:58 +1000 Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA12343 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:45:50 +1000 Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <4416-23049>; Mon, 10 May 1999 15:45:22 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA08595; Mon, 10 May 1999 13:31:34 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "'Fearghal O'Boyle'" Cc: Subject: RE: Slow Pass Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 15:10:42 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F382@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01BE9AF7.E6654A30" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883736B23C@xion.spase.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BE9AF7.E6654A30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit    >  -----Original Message-----  > From: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Fearghal O'Boyle  > Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 12:05  > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au  > Subject: Slow Pass  >  > Hi gang,  >   > Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling:  >   > N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS)  >    > N          E        S            W  > 1D        3S       4NT        P  > 5S        P        6H          P(H)  > P          6S      P            P  > Dbl        P        P            P  >    > Both pairs are of international standard and agree there was a noticeable break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid.  >    > East held:    S. Q10965432        H. -        D. 5        C. J1043  >   >   > Table result:  6SX-3 (N/S +500).   6H is unbeatable.  >    > East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of 'insurance'.  >     > I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I judged 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI   > (whether it suggested defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance.   Usually I prefer complete distributions, because it can be very important to know what other players hold. However, in this case I think I can say something about the case. The most important rule of pre-empting is that you sell it only once. Virtually all players from a certain level on know this rule and live by it. I once saw a problem in a bidding forum where someone pre-empted 4D and later rebid 6D, and he was declared an IDIOT by all contestants! So, unless partner forces a bid, pre-empter always passes later on. If he bids anyway, this is very strange, and in this case therefore almost certainly influenced by partner's pause. Hence the score should be adjusted to 6H made by South (NS +1430), as you did.   Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BE9AF7.E6654A30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 >  -----Original = Message-----
 > =
From:=20 owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au=20 [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of = Fearghal=20 O'Boyle
 >=20 Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 = 12:05
 > = To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au
 > = Subject:=20 Slow Pass
 >=20
 >=20 Hi gang,
 > 
 >=20 Your opinions would be appreciated on this=20 ruling:
 > 
 >=20 N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS)
 >  
 >=20 = N        &nb= sp;=20 E       =20 S           =20 W
 >=20 1D       =20 3S      =20 4NT        P
 >=20 5S       =20 P       =20 6H          = P(H)
 >=20 = P        &nb= sp;=20 6S     =20 P           =20 P
 >=20 Dbl       =20 P       =20 P           =20 P
 >  
 > = Both pairs=20 are of international standard and agree there = was a=20 noticeable break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H=20 bid.
 >  
 >=20 East held:    S.=20 Q10965432        H.=20 -        D.=20 5        C. J1043
 > 
 > 
 >=20 Table result:  6SX-3 (N/S = +500).   6H is=20 unbeatable.
 >  
 >=20 East said he would always bid 6S with that hand = as a=20 form of 'insurance'.
 >   
 >=20 I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S = +1430)=20 because I judged 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and = felt the=20 UI 
 > (whether it suggested defence or = play)=20 reduced the potential cost of the insurance.
 
Usually I prefer complete distributions, because it can be = very=20 important to know what other players hold. However, in this=20 case
I=20 think I can say something about the case. The most important rule of = pre-empting is that you sell it only once. Virtually = all
players from a certain level on know this rule and live by = it. I once=20 saw a problem in a bidding forum where someone=20 pre-empted
4D=20 and later rebid 6D, and he was declared an IDIOT by all contestants! = So,=20 unless partner forces a bid, pre-empter always
passes later on. If he bids anyway, this is very strange, = and in this=20 case therefore almost certainly influenced by partner's=20 pause.
Hence the score should be adjusted = to 6H made by=20 South (NS +1430), as you did.
 
Martin Sinot
martin@spase.nl
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01BE9AF7.E6654A30-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 01:43:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 01:43:05 +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 BAA14856 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 01:42:58 +1000 Received: from ip123.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.123]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990510154252.GBQC3593.fep2@ip123.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:42:52 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim and Finesse Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 15:42:53 GMT Message-ID: <373dfe4f.394947@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990510081327.006e4668@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990510081327.006e4668@pop.cais.com> 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 Mon, 10 May 1999 08:13:27 -0400 skrev Eric Landau: >>incorrect conclusion. Is leading toward dummy and calling a card before >>LHO plays careless or irrational? I'd say it's irrational, but I'd like an oppinion from someone with more knowledge than I have. >Yes, definitely. If "careless" didn't include playing the 10 from Q10 >doubleton on RHO's J, it wouldn't cover anything. I'd call not taking a trick with a standing card "irrational" (but Robert E. Harris described something else). Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 01:59:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 01:59:28 +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 BAA14921 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 01:59:15 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com (3962) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pAOa026069 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 11:58:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:58:04 EDT Subject: Re: Slow Pass 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/10/99 3:05:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Fearghal writes: > Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: [s] > East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of 'insurance'. > > > I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I judged 'Pass' > to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI (whether it suggested > defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance. I concur with your decision. This was clearly not a case of a player "walking the dog". Further evidence in favor of the adjustment is the decision to bid only 3S at the first opportunity. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 02:39:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 02:39:13 +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 CAA15140 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 02:39:03 +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 MAA01875 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 12:38:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA22303 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 12:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 12:39:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905101639.MAA22303@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 SW> > Over here, it is considered the SW> > NS responsibility to check on the EW pair number. > From: "Jens & Bodil" > L5B anyone? Yes, of course. No question that EW can be fined if they move to the wrong table. I see how what I wrote might imply otherwise, but that isn't what I meant. Sorry for the unclear wording. The NS responsibility, which is in addition to the L5B requirement on EW, apparently derives from L7D and perhaps L80F, although I have to confess I've never seen an explicit statement ("publish or announce") of such a requirement. Nevertheless, it has been applied in practice, and it is certainly the custom around here for NS to verify the EW pair number at the start of the round. I seem to recall having seen NS pairs fined for playing the wrong EW, but at the moment I can't recall a specific time and place where it happened. Of course EW would always be fined in such a case; NS would be fined only if they made no effort to verify the EW pair was correct. In one case I recall, the EW pair had the correct number but moved to the wrong section; NS were not fined. (Hint to TD's: lay out the table numbers in adjacent sections to make this mistake unlikely.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 03:05:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 03:05:38 +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 DAA15194 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 03:05:26 +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 NAA04568 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 13:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA22333 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 13:05:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 13:05:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905101705.NAA22333@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 > L7D has nothing to do with pair numbers: it refers to conditions of > play, and is clear from the rest of L7 that it is not referring to who > the opponents are, but to the control of the board and the cards. It is certainly clear as regards L7A, L7B, and L7C. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 03:14:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 03:14:42 +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 DAA15236 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 03:14:36 +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 10gtdN-0006J8-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:14:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 14:35:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow Pass References: <000d01be9acb$d7d2af20$c8307dc2@tsvecfob> In-Reply-To: <000d01be9acb$d7d2af20$c8307dc2@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: > Hi gang, > =A0 > Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: > =A0 > N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS) > =A0 > N=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 E=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 W > 1D=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 3S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 4NT=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P > 5S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 6H=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0 P(H) > P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 6S=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 P > Dbl=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 P=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0 P > =A0 > Both pairs are of international standard and agree there was a=20 > noticeable break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid. > =A0 > Table result:=A0 6SX-3 (N/S +500).=A0=A0 6H is unbeatable. > =A0 > East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of=20 > 'insurance'. > =A0 > =A0 > I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I=20 > judged 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI=20 > (whether it suggested defence or play) reduced the potential cost=20 > of the insurance. I adjust to 6H making. Of course, you have not given us the hand, but it is difficult to think of any hand ever dealt where Pass is not an LA on the given sequence, so I don't need the hand! Note the comment by East may be *completely true*! Fortunately, it is *completely irrelevant*! --=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 Tue May 11 03:43:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 03:43:52 +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 DAA15307 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 03:43:41 +1000 Received: from p6fs05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.112] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10gu5S-0003H4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:43:31 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Slow Pass Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:46:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01be9b0d$04b05e20$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: AlLeBendig@aol.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, May 10, 1999 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Slow Pass >In a message dated 5/10/99 3:05:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Fearghal writes: > >> Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: > > [s] > > >> East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of 'insurance'. >> >> >> I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I judged >'Pass' >> to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI (whether it suggested >> defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance. > >I concur with your decision. This was clearly not a case of a player >"walking the dog". Further evidence in favor of the adjustment is the >decision to bid only 3S at the first opportunity. I go along with this, as I guess will most others. Yes. It is becoming more apparent to me that players do not always understand their responsibility when they are in receipt of UI. I suspect that when teaching beginners it is easier to say "you must ignore the hesitation" "pretend to yourself that it has not happened" " make the bid you would always have made" etc., etc. The point is that 9 times out of 10 the beginner does not know what the hesitation suggests anyway. When dealing with experienced (good or poor) Bridge players we are dealing with people who have experience of other hesitations. These players have a responsibility under Law 16 to "avoid" taking action suggested ..... This may disallow the bid that they would "always" have made, we know it, but how are we to educate players as to their responsibility if we are not prepared to spend time explaining why we make the rulings we do. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 04:16:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 04:16:23 +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 EAA15453 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 04:16:17 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-35-45.s45.tnt9.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.35.45]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA02629 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 14:16:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <012101be9b11$19411ec0$2d23accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <000d01be9acb$d7d2af20$c8307dc2@tsvecfob> Subject: Re: Slow Pass Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 14:15:26 -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: Monday, May 10, 1999 9:35 AM Subject: Re: Slow Pass >I adjust to 6H making. Of course, you have not given us the hand, but >it is difficult to think of any hand ever dealt where Pass is not an LA >on the given sequence, so I don't need the hand! One moment. Pass is certainly an LA. But is it an LA that is suggested by the hesitation? I can't tell from the hand whether partner was thinking of sacrificing or doubling. If Partner is looking at the setting tricks in his own hand, he's not going to be amused by the pull. My read of the 6S call is that is a gambling action that was certainly influenced by the UI, but not necessarily suggested by the UI. > Note the comment by East may be *completely true*! Fortunately, it is >*completely irrelevant*! >-- >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 ~ This case bothers me. My initial reaction was that the sacrifice was not suggested by the hesitation, so that I could not rule under Law 16. However, it seems to me that the sacrifice was in fact influenced by the hesitation. Accordingly, I was going to suggest a procedural penalty for violation of Law 73. However, I am not able to find a section of that Law that applies here. Once again, it appears that we can only penalize the use of the hesitation if it suggests one LA over another. There seems to be no mechanism to adjust gambling actions that are influenced by UI, but not suggested by UI. I disagree completely with the assertion made that 6S is cheap insurance whether the the hesitation suggested defense of offense. If it suggested offense, then 6S is disallowed. If the hesitation suggested defense, then 6S was not suggested by the UI and is allowed. If we can't tell which situation applies, then the UI did not suggest one LA over another, and there are no grounds for adjustment. OK, what am I doing wrong that leads me to a different conclusion than everyone else? Hirsch Rockville, MD USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 04:38:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 04:38:51 +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 EAA15536 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 04:38:43 +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 OAA18258 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 14:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 14:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905101838.OAA09458@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <001801be9acc$90669380$c8307dc2@tsvecfob> Subject: Re: Slow Pass Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes: > Hi gang, > Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: > N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS) > N E S W > 1D 3S 4NT P > 5S P 6H P(H) > P 6S P P > Dbl P P P > Both pairs are of international standard and agree there was a = > noticeable break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid. > East held: S. Q10965432 H. - D. 5 C. J1043 > Table result: 6SX-3 (N/S +500). 6H is unbeatable. > East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of = > 'insurance'. The fundamental rule of preemptive bidding is that you should preempt as high as you are willing to go, and then let partner make all further decisions. It must always be a logical alternative to honor that rule, even though there are times that experts break it. I am not an expert, but I do not believe that this is a good "insurance" situation; if East was not willing to let the opponents play 6H, he should not have been willing to let the opponents play 4H. The other question is whether the hesitation demonstrably suggests a sacrifice. West is on lead, and thus he should have a clear decision whether or not to double; he can only double if he has both 6H and 6NT beaten in his own hand. East should figure out that the slow pass is likely to be considering a sacrifice, and that this makes the sacrifice more attractive by decreasing the amount it will go down. I would be inclined not to impose a procedural penalty if East might have thought that West was considering a penalty double (x JT9x Qxxxx Axx). -- 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 May 11 04:40:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 04:40:41 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA15565 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 04:40:32 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10guyW-0008EG-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:40:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:19:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession Withdrawn L71C References: <37360913.C643786C@xtra.co.nz> <3736A184.D30E6EB7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3736A184.D30E6EB7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I am rather large in these circumstances I cannot think of anything to say! -- 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 May 11 06:57:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 06:57:23 +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 GAA15896 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 06:57:16 +1000 Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 06:57:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 26133 invoked from network); 10 May 1999 20:57:06 -0000 Received: from pm02-090.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.90) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 10 May 1999 20:57:06 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990510165038.0ee76922@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: Slow Pass Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:59 AM 5/10/99 +0100, you wrote: >Hi gang, > >Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: > >N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS) > >N E S W >1D 3S 4NT P >5S P 6H P(H) >P 6S P P >Dbl P P P This case is very close to a hand that i wanted to get ruled back but got denied based on the fact that East can NOT know if the hesitation suggests bid on or defend. The action i would clearly disallow is a dble from East since it is a catch all bid and clearly suggested over passing out 6he or bidding 6sp. We can EASY argue that if pass had been successful NS will claim damage there as well in claiming how can a player not take the obvious insurance, blah blah. 6Sp was successfull this time but would have been a disaster if west was thnking of dbling them in 6he but chickend out. We can not tell what pd was thnking of. > >Both pairs are of international standard and agree there was a noticeable break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid. > >Table result: 6SX-3 (N/S +500). 6H is unbeatable. > >East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of 'insurance'. > > >I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I judged 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI (whether it suggested defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance. If pd was thnking of dubbling them for business 6sp arent going to make pd happy. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 07:12:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 07:12:39 +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 HAA15959 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 07:12:31 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21700; 10 May 99 12:09 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Full disclosure before the fact In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 09 May 1999 13:18:30 PDT." <199905091718.NAA16872@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 12:09:35 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9905101209.aa21700@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > A penalty pass after a redouble of a takeout double, on an auction such > as 2H-X-XX-P, does not fit either criterion; the opponents should not be > allowed to either bid 2H or redouble with different hands depending on > whether the pass is for penalty. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Yeah, I know, the usual answer is to avoid the "chicken-and-egg" problem. But I think the solution---i.e. not allowing people to make bids based on opponents' agreements about future bids---goes too far. As a rule, solutions that make changes to the very nature of the game should be avoided if at all possible. For example, this mailing list describes zillions of problems related to enforcing the UI and full-disclosure laws; Jim Davis proposed that we simply eliminate those laws, and that would certainly eliminate the problems, but at the unacceptable cost of changing the game into something very different than the game we all love. Prohibiting players from basing their actions on opponents' future actions won't change the game as radically as Davis' ideas would, but IMHO it would still take away an important part of the game. The fact is, a bidding system is not a "function" in the mathematical sense, i.e. a mapping by which one can determine a unique correct bid for every hand in a given auction (given the vulnerability and form of scoring). Rather, a player with the same hand, in the exact same auction, with the exact same vulnerability and form of scoring, might make a different call depending on the player's judgment, e.g. you might make a thin game invitation if you think the opponents defend like fish but might pass if the opponents are good defenders, or you might make a lousy preempt if you believe it will work against certain opponents but avoid it against solid opponents that may be more likely to make a penalty double, or you might bid a bit less aggressively if partner's declarer play has been less than stellar so far in the session. So given that the right call is sometimes a matter of judgment, and that that judgment is based sometimes on what you predict the opponents are going to do afterwards, it makes sense to me that the opponents' system should not be excluded from the process of making that judgment. Besides, how do we enforce it if we allow judgments like "I'm going to make a bad preempt because I know these opponents are timid about doubling me into game", but not "I'm going to make a bad preempt because these opponents' system won't let them make me play it doubled"? FWIW, the esteemed editor of the _Bridge World_ seems to take my side in this. Last February (maybe March, I don't have the magazines in front of me), in an essay about full disclosure, Rubens included a real-life example where South opened a weak 1NT and West took some action, but West didn't know that N-S's agreement was that North wasn't allowed to pass with 0-5 HCP. Rubens felt that full disclosure had failed, because if West had known about this agreement, he might have passed waiting to see what would happen. Thus, believes Rubens, the laws need to make sure that in a case like this, West would have information about this N-S agreement available before he makes his decision. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 07:37:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 07:37:20 +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 HAA16045 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 07:37:11 +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 RAA14528 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA22523 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 17:37:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905102137.RAA22523@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow Pass X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Pass is certainly an LA. But is it an LA that is suggested by > the hesitation? I can't tell from the hand whether partner was thinking of > sacrificing or doubling. This was my concern as well. Perhaps the hesitation was because partner was planning a Lightner double, holding a spade void. In that case, the sacrifice may not work so well. On the other hand, if that is what partner had, why didn't he go ahead and double? Perhaps it's because he can't see a second trick, in which case the sacrifice will be no phantom. Even if trumps break 4-1 with partner void (as is likely on the bidding), the sacrifice may pay off. (Was this IMPs or matchpoints?) I am far from sure of the right answer, but I am sure that the L16 issue is "suggested over another" and not LA's. Certainly pass is a LA in any jurisdiction. Why shouldn't the slam be going down on bad breaks? Of course as Hirsch says, this may be a L73C case and not a L16A case at all. I know not everyone approves of that approach. Finally, I don't see at all why the player couldn't have been intending from the beginning to "walk" the hand. Fortunately, his intentions are irrelevant. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 07:41:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 07:41:43 +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 HAA16067 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 07:41:31 +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 RAA22751 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 17:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 17:41:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905102141.RAA13400@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.16.19990510165038.0ee76922@pop3.iag.net> (message from Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren on Tue, 11 May 1999 06:57:16 +1000) Subject: Re: Slow Pass Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren writes: > At 10:59 AM 5/10/99 +0100, you wrote: >> Hi gang, >> Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: >> N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS) >> N E S W >> 1D 3S 4NT P >> 5S P 6H P(H) >> P 6S P P >> Dbl P P P > This case is very close to a hand that i wanted to get ruled back but got > denied based on the fact that East can NOT know if the hesitation suggests > bid on or defend. The action i would clearly disallow is a dble from East > since it is a catch all bid and clearly suggested over passing out 6he or > bidding 6sp. While I understand the principle of forbidding a catch-all double here, I don't think it applies here. I would allow a Lightner double, because it is not demonstrably suggested by the UI and East's hand. If East is void in diamonds, the fact that West was apparently considering a sacrifice makes the double less attractive because it is less likely West has a trick. And West would not bid 6S over this Lightner double; if West was considering a sacrifice, East's lightner double makes a phantom more likely. If East makes a double which is not Lightner and does not have the contract probably beaten in his hand, then he is probably taking an action suggested to him by the UI. If West pulls to 6S, this is evidence that East read West's hesitation. We could apply the Rule of Coincidence; East doubled a contract which did not expect to beat, and West declined to sacrifice until after there was a double. On East's actual hand (with a heart void), a double is an irrational bid, and could only be made under suggestion from the UI. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 08:03:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:03:47 +1000 Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16128 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:03:42 +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 SAA23183 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:03:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905102203.SAA13751@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199905102137.RAA22523@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Mon, 10 May 1999 17:37:09 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Slow Pass Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> Pass is certainly an LA. But is it an LA that is suggested by >> the hesitation? I can't tell from the hand whether partner was thinking of >> sacrificing or doubling. > This was my concern as well. Perhaps the hesitation was because > partner was planning a Lightner double, holding a spade void. In that > case, the sacrifice may not work so well. Partner is on lead. > Finally, I don't see at all why the player couldn't have been intending > from the beginning to "walk" the hand. Fortunately, his intentions are < irrelevant. I agree with this, because the player's previous bidding is consistent with not attempting to "walk". If a player makes a bid which would be wrong if he did not intend to make a subsequent bid, he should normally be allowed to make that subsequent bid even if there is UI. (For example, after 1H-3H, a player with the DA and SA in comparable suits who bids 4D should be allowed to go on over a slow 4H, since he would have bid 3S previously if he didn't intend to show both aces.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 08:09:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:09:02 +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 IAA16149 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:08:54 +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 SAA19237 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:08:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA22574 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:08:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905102208.SAA22574@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow Pass X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Perhaps the hesitation was because > partner was planning a Lightner double, holding a spade void. Sorry, this was silly. I didn't have the auction in front of me; the doubler would have been on lead. Please change it to: partner was planning a double but wasn't sure he could beat 6NT (or 7D!), or was afraid his double would give away the bad trump break. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 08:24:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:24:21 +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 IAA16179 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:24:13 +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 SAA20331 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA22594 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:24:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905102224.SAA22594@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure - perhaps better titled: "Disclosure fully and freely available". X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I believe [2] is the question of greater interest. In particular, is > > it possible to write regulations that a) satisfy our requirement of > > full disclosure, > From: "Grattan" > +++ Law 40 demands that certain agreements be 'disclosed'. The > Law does not use the word 'full' here because disclosure is an > absolute - things are either disclosed or they are not. > Reinforcing this Law 75 calls for all special agreements to be > "fully and freely available to the opponents" and I suggest > compliance with this means, for example, that they must be in > view in detail before the auction commences If they cannot and > do not damage opponents in ignorance of them, the point need > not be pursued closely- until there is damage to show that the > users have misjudged the matter. Let's be fair here. The original message (quoted below) contained also items b), c), and d). I have no doubt we can achieve a) alone, but combining it with the other three is the tough part. David's example is relevant also. Not everyone reads L40B the same way you seem to. ----- Begin Included Message ----- From willner Fri May 7 11:17:44 1999 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Full disclosure before-the-fact > From: David Stevenson > [1] What the Law requires in the way of disclosure, which is actually > what the RA decides. > > [2] What we feel that ought to be required in the way of disclosure. Thank you, David. I believe [2] is the question of greater interest. In particular, is it possible to write regulations that a) satisfy our requirement of full disclosure, b) allow freedom to select methods and counter opponents' methods, c) don't introduce paradoxes, and d) are practical and enforceable. I think we can manage any three of the above, but I'm not sure about all four. Richard's comments are especially apt, I think. Present regulations seem to be a strange hybrid of "simultaneous selection" and "staged selection" of strategies. ----- End Included Message ----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 08:34:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:34:26 +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 IAA16207 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:34:17 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-44-59.s59.tnt3.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.44.59]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id SAA16319 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 18:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007101be9b35$237cb560$3b2caccf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199905102137.RAA22523@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Slow Pass Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 18:33:33 -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: Monday, May 10, 1999 5:37 PM Subject: Re: Slow Pass > > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > Pass is certainly an LA. But is it an LA that is suggested by > > the hesitation? I can't tell from the hand whether partner was thinking of > > sacrificing or doubling. > > This was my concern as well. Perhaps the hesitation was because > partner was planning a Lightner double, holding a spade void. In that > case, the sacrifice may not work so well. > Lightner doubles don't work all that well when made by the opening leader > On the other hand, if that is what partner had, why didn't he go ahead > and double? Perhaps it's because he can't see a second trick, in which > case the sacrifice will be no phantom. Even if trumps break 4-1 with > partner void (as is likely on the bidding), the sacrifice may pay off. > (Was this IMPs or matchpoints?) > If partner has JTxx of hearts and a side A, he may have been considering a double, but passed, fearing an escape to a making NT contract. He will not like 6S. > I am far from sure of the right answer, but I am sure that the L16 > issue is "suggested over another" and not LA's. Certainly pass is > a LA in any jurisdiction. Why shouldn't the slam be going down on > bad breaks? > > Of course as Hirsch says, this may be a L73C case and not a L16A case > at all. I know not everyone approves of that approach. > No, I don't see a justification for either L16 or L73 unless one LA is suggested over the other by the UI. The UI does not appear to suggest either 6S or pass over the other, ruling out L16A. The 6S bidder cannot know whether or not 6S will be advantageous to his side or not, which rules out L73C. I am convinced that the 6S bid was influenced by the UI. What bothers me is that it still appears to be legal. The player appears to have noted his partner's pause, flipped a mental coin to guess what it meant, and acted. On this particular hand, he got lucky. He could just as easily have turned a plus into a minus on a different lie of the cards. Is there anything in the Law that prevents this? > Finally, I don't see at all why the player couldn't have been intending > from the beginning to "walk" the hand. Fortunately, his intentions are > irrelevant. > Agreed that intentions are irrelevant. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 09:13:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:13:46 +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 JAA16298 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:13:37 +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 10gzEp-0007cF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:13:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:51:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow Pass References: <000d01be9acb$d7d2af20$c8307dc2@tsvecfob> <012101be9b11$19411ec0$2d23accf@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <012101be9b11$19411ec0$2d23accf@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >From: David Stevenson >>I adjust to 6H making. Of course, you have not given us the hand, but >>it is difficult to think of any hand ever dealt where Pass is not an LA >>on the given sequence, so I don't need the hand! >One moment. Pass is certainly an LA. But is it an LA that is suggested by >the hesitation? I can't tell from the hand whether partner was thinking of >sacrificing or doubling. If Partner is looking at the setting tricks in his >own hand, he's not going to be amused by the pull. My read of the 6S call >is that is a gambling action that was certainly influenced by the UI, but >not necessarily suggested by the UI. OK, so it is a judgement matter, and my judgement is different from yours. In my view, when a player pre-empts, and his partner pauses over a slam by the oppos, he is thinking of sacrificing. I believe the UI suggests bidding. >OK, what am I doing wrong that leads me to a different conclusion than >everyone else? You are not doing anything wrong, merely disagreeing on the bridge judgement. -- 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 May 11 09:31:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:31:14 +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 JAA16320 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:31:08 +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 <19990510233102.VWUX14950.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 16:31:02 -0700 Message-ID: <37376D56.61C6A3F4@home.com> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:35:50 -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: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) References: <000801be9ae7$0313ba60$268393c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > For a committee to produce two different equities or > rulings on a board is pure farce. ~ Grattan ~ +++ So you would presumably agree if the ruling was NS +4 1/3 imp, EW -6 imp? From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 09:46:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:46:15 +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 JAA16371 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:46:08 +1000 Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:46:08 +1000 Received: (qmail 24860 invoked from network); 10 May 1999 23:46:01 -0000 Received: from pm02-096.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.96) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 10 May 1999 23:46:00 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990510194427.37079e0a@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: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:01 PM 5/9/99 +0200, you wrote: >I was not actively involved in that thread, but I do read >(sometimes not very attentively) every message, and then I >saw my initials : > >Jan Kamras wrote: >> >> David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > How can both sides lose by 1 imp? >> >> Well, with their ruling 2 imps are "missing" from the total. Prior to >> that the score might have been 65-64 to the NS team, EW losing by 1. >> After the 2 are deducted from NS, they too lose by 1. Presumably the LK >> could have handled the tie-breaker by initially awarding instead +5/-6, >> but it seems they wanted to reflect that they specifically considered NS >> responsible for the 2 imps from -140 to -200. Anyway, I'm purely >> guessing here. Lacking specific guidelines, an AC can do whatever they >> want, however they want to do it, under L12C3 as long as it perceives it >> equitable. >> >> > Does not L86B cover this? >> >> I'm not sure. It says to average the scores on that board and apply it >> to both sides for that board (however that is done between -110 and +4 >> imp), but the match overall can still end in a tie after that, can't it? >> Iow, L86B doesn not seem to be a "tie-breaker" law. What says HdW? > >First of all, I like the idea of the AC attributing a >tie-breaker score just in case. They could do so in several >ways, such as awarding an artificial score containing 1/3 of >an IMP. (not 1/2 - that might create a tie in stead !) > >With knock-out team play it is possible for both teams to >end up equal. Especially if a result is contested after the >fact, it is quite likely that scores are almost equal to >begin with. When the AC decides in favour of the appealing >side, it can influence the result enormously. It is of >course best for the AC not to know the exact order of the >difference, and awarding something which turns out as +1.3 >IMPs seems a good way of telling that it is not the AC who >decided the outcome of the match, only of that one deal. > >AS for L86B, it seems to me that this is just the same as >saying that if team A loses the match by 1 IMP, and B loses >by 3 IMPs, the result of the one board should not be given >as both negative, but averageing. >So in that case A wins by 1, B loses by 1. >But that is not a tie-breaker. >If both teams lose by 2, then that turns by L86B into a >draw. > >By awarding a specific score, the AC are saying that in the >event of a draw, they declare A or B the winner. > >If this is not a ground-shattering contribution, then blame >it on whomever asked me to contribute in the first place. I personally concidered the tie breaker part of the ruling to be the "only" interesting part. Just asking myself why don't the LK allow L95B to take place if the match ends in a tie??? Robert From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 09:57:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:57:03 +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 JAA16394 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:56:56 +1000 Received: from p5cs05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.93] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10gzuj-0007dB-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 00:56:50 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Twins? Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 00:59:42 +0100 Message-ID: <01be9b41$2c2738a0$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 Here are two hand which caused me concern at a recent National final event. a) Session 1. Board 24 Love all Dealer West JT2 AT843 J4 JT4 KQ98 A7643 95 762 AKQ875 63 6 983 5 KQJ T92 AKQ752 W N E S 1D P P 3C* 3D 4H P 5C P P P * Alerted and explained as two suited with Hearts and Clubs (CC confirms this is the agreement) Result. 5C = Play AD:KD:QD in hope of getting trump promotion. b) Session 3. Board 3 E/W Vun. Dealer S. AT963 85 JT95 62 KQ42 875 Q432 KJ7 KQ 86432 AKJ 94 J AT96 A7 QT8753 W N E S 1C X P 1D 2C X ...P 2D 2H X 2S P P X 3C P P X ...P Hesitation agreed by North. Result 3C* - 2 e/w +300 The methods of approach are not my prime concern although I am interested to hear what you say. My main concern is that both hands involved the same N/S. Thanks. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 12:31:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:31:32 +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 MAA16643 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:31:24 +1000 Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 12:31:24 +1000 Received: (qmail 9160 invoked from network); 11 May 1999 02:31:18 -0000 Received: from pm02-066.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.66) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 11 May 1999 02:31:18 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990510222953.49cf2f3e@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: Twins? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:59 AM 5/11/99 +0100, you wrote: >Here are two hand which caused me concern at a recent National final event. > >a) Session 1. Board 24 Love all Dealer West > > JT2 > AT843 > J4 > JT4 > KQ98 A7643 > 95 762 > AKQ875 63 > 6 983 > 5 > KQJ > T92 > AKQ752 > >West North East South > 1D P P 3C* > 3D 4H P 5C > P P P > >* Alerted and explained as two suited with Hearts and Clubs (CC confirms >this is the agreement) >Result. 5C = >Play AD:KD:QD in hope of getting trump promotion. > > >b) Session 3. Board 3 E/W Vun. Dealer S. > > AT963 > 85 > JT95 > 62 > KQ42 875 > Q432 KJ7 > KQ 86432 > AKJ 94 > J > AT96 > A7 > QT8753 > > W N E S > --- --- --- 1C > X P 1D 2C > X ...P 2D 2H > X 2S P P > X 3C P P > X all pass i presume :) >...P Hesitation agreed by North. > >Result 3C* - 2 e/w +300 > >The methods of approach are not my prime concern although I am interested to >hear what you say. My main concern is that both hands involved the same N/S. > >Thanks. > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 12:31:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:31:06 +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 MAA16636 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:30:53 +1000 Received: from claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.64.22]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA27547 for ; Mon, 10 May 1999 22:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 22:30:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905110230.WAA19888@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01be9b41$2c2738a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> (eajewm@globalnet.co.uk) Subject: Re: Twins? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes: > Here are two hand which caused me concern at a recent National final event. General note: When posting a hand, please use fixed-width fonts, no tabs, and no more than 72 columns, or the hand may be unreadable on other machines. I've fixed the spacing on these hands. > a) Session 1. Board 24 Love all Dealer West > JT2 > AT843 > J4 > JT4 > KQ98 A7643 > 95 762 > AKQ875 63 > 6 983 > 5 > KQJ > T92 > AKQ752 > W N E S > 1D P P 3C* > 3D 4H P 5C > P P P > * Alerted and explained as two suited with Hearts and Clubs (CC confirms > this is the agreement) > Result. 5C = > Play AD:KD:QD in hope of getting trump promotion. What does 4H mean to South? If it's a splinter, then South did nothing wrong, as 5C is the only LA. If it's a suit, than 5C is an infraction unless it is a slam try. In any case, it caused no damage, since 4H is laydown. As for the line of play, if South's explanation is correct, he would have to be 6-4 and thus void in spades, so this line of play was likely to have been caused by the MI. Adjust to down one. > b) Session 3. Board 3 E/W Vun. Dealer S. > AT963 > 85 > JT95 > 62 > KQ42 875 > Q432 KJ7 > KQ 86432 > AKJ 94 > J > AT96 > A7 > QT8753 > W N E S > 1C > X P 1D 2C > X ...P 2D 2H > X 2S P P > X 3C P P > X > ...P Hesitation agreed by North. > Result 3C* - 2 e/w +300 South's 2H was suggested by North's hesitation, and pass is surely an LA. I don't think this caused damage, because it doesn't look like E-W were likely to make 3NT. > The methods of approach are not my prime concern although I am interested to > hear what you say. My main concern is that both hands involved the same N/S. Was South at fault on the first hand? If he was (and the TD was called), he should be aware of his ethical responsibilities, and should get a PP on the second hand even if he isn't particualrly experienced. The 2H bid on the second hand is serious enough that an expert South should be penalized anyway; he's bidding 2H in the face of West having shown 18 points and no strong diamond fit -- 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 May 11 13:16:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 13:16:14 +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 NAA16716 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 13:16:07 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA16252 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 20:14:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 20:14:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199905110314.UAA16252@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Twins? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: |Anne Jones writes: | |> Here are two hand which caused me concern at a recent National final event. | |> a) Session 1. Board 24 Love all Dealer West | |> JT2 |> AT843 |> J4 |> JT4 |> KQ98 A7643 |> 95 762 |> AKQ875 63 |> 6 983 |> 5 |> KQJ |> T92 |> AKQ752 | |> W N E S |> 1D P P 3C* |> 3D 4H P 5C |> P P P | |> * Alerted and explained as two suited with Hearts and Clubs (CC confirms |> this is the agreement) |> Result. 5C = |> Play AD:KD:QD in hope of getting trump promotion. | |What does 4H mean to South? If it's a splinter, then South did nothing |wrong, as 5C is the only LA. If it's a suit, than 5C is an infraction |unless it is a slam try. In any case, it caused no damage, since 4H is |laydown. I agree. And 4S is too, but the explanation probably helps E/W get to spades rather than hinders them, since it "reveals" the double fit that's actually there. |As for the line of play, if South's explanation is correct, he would |have to be 6-4 and thus void in spades, so this line of play was likely |to have been caused by the MI. Adjust to down one. If the explanation is correct, there's no MI, no reason to adjust the score. Let's imagine, however, that the explanation was wrong. East made a blunder on the hand by encouraging diamonds (I assume; if East had shown three diamonds, West'd've shifted to spades). East knows he can't overruff dummy and is looking at the SA, so he knows he wants a spade shift. If East is at all a good player, asking for an adjusted score after that play takes a bit of chutzpah. Is, however, encouraging diamonds "irrational, wild, or gambling?" Doesn't seem like it to me, just seems like a foolish error. If I had to rule whether or not it broke causality based on the above criterion, I'd rule that it didn't. If I had to decide within some personal standards that I make up on the fly, I'd rule that if East was a strong player, the error was quite severe enough to limit his redress. Same goes for the 1NT on 5-5. But if I had to rule by the guidelines, I'd let 'em both off the hook. Maybe I don't understand those guidelines? Or maybe they just don't jibe with my sense of fairness. |> b) Session 3. Board 3 E/W Vun. Dealer S. | |> AT963 |> 85 |> JT95 |> 62 |> KQ42 875 |> Q432 KJ7 |> KQ 86432 |> AKJ 94 |> J |> AT96 |> A7 |> QT8753 | |> W N E S |> 1C |> X P 1D 2C |> X ...P 2D 2H |> X 2S P P |> X 3C P P |> X | |> ...P Hesitation agreed by North. | |> Result 3C* - 2 e/w +300 | |South's 2H was suggested by North's hesitation, and pass is surely an |LA. I don't think this caused damage, because it doesn't look like E-W |were likely to make 3NT. Nah. 2H wasn't suggested by anything. It's certainly not a logical alternative. What kind of goofball would bid a short suit shown by a strong hand on his left? Moreover, if North had some action in mind, he has another chance to do it. It might've been redouble to try to nail them. He'd get to double 2D if so. No, 2H can't be right, with or without UI. Is it a case of L73 violation? Maybe. I think I'd have to be there to rule that way. If anything, the hezzie mildly suggested passing as that's the best way to get out of partner's way. But since passing is the only LA, it doesn't suggest any LA over another. I wonder, by the way, what North was thinking about? Trying to bar partner? nah...partner is almost never going to bid. Even assuming a diabolical N/S, I can't see any violations other than of common sense. (Please, I'm not accusing N/S of being diabolical, but simply considering whether the actions taken were consistent with it.) |> The methods of approach are not my prime concern although I am interested to |> hear what you say. My main concern is that both hands involved the same N/S. | |Was South at fault on the first hand? If he was (and the TD was |called), he should be aware of his ethical responsibilities, and should |get a PP on the second hand even if he isn't particualrly experienced. I don't agree with that, but if I were there I might rule that way after hearing South's explanation for his action. |The 2H bid on the second hand is serious enough that an expert South |should be penalized anyway; he's bidding 2H in the face of West having |shown 18 points and no strong diamond fit West hasn't shown 18 points, just extra values compared to a normal takeout double. Maybe he has AKxx KQJxx QJx x. That'd be what I'd have, I think. No expert South would bid 2H, best I can tell, unless he was trying insanely hard to be ethical and thought the hesitation suggested passing. If South is a weak player, guessing his motivation over the internet is too hard for anyone to do, I think. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 14:22:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 14:22:54 +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 OAA16804 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 14:22:47 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id XAA30705 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:22:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0XBN1011 Sat, 08 May 99 23:43:14 Message-ID: <9905082343.0XBN101@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 08 May 99 23:43:14 Subject: SWEDISH L To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It does seem if a fair adjudication by the AC culminates in a tie match that the CoC are referred to for the procedure for breaking the tie. All of the CoC I have ever read required that ties are broken by playing an additional set[s] of boards until the tie is broken. Roger Pewick B>I wrote: -s- B>I have some comments on this: B>a) It seems the LC did *not* know the end-result when ruling, and B>excercised some foresight in already covering the potential tie-breaker B>situation b4 they could be compromised, accused of favouritism, or B>whatever. It is maybe like giving NS +4.49 imp rather than just +4. Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 14:22:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA16803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 14:22:45 +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 OAA16797 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 14:22:39 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id XAA30701 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 May 1999 23:22:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0XBL5010 Sat, 08 May 99 23:43:10 Message-ID: <9905082343.0XBL501@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 08 May 99 23:43:10 Subject: PASS OVER A R To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Marvin French wrote: B>Later: B>I have received a reply from Gary Blaiss of the ACBL. His opinion is B>that *all* passes to play over a redouble of *any* non-penalty double B>should be Alertable. He has referred this matter to the Competitions and B>Conventions Committee to see if they agree. This seems rather inane. Roger Pewick B>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 17:14:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:14:41 +1000 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA17154 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:14:34 +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 <19990511071422.WPZ14950.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 00:14:22 -0700 Message-ID: <3737D9EE.23CC0BC8@home.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 00:19:10 -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: Twins? References: <199905110230.WAA19888@claytor.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > As for the line of play, if South's explanation is correct, he would > have to be 6-4 and thus void in spades, so this line of play was likely > to have been caused by the MI. What MI? North explained South's call correctly as per the CC. South misbid. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 17:17:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:17:13 +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 RAA17176 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:17:07 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-201.uunet.be [194.7.9.201]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA13661 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:16:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3736F002.F1059ED@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:41:06 +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: Claim and Finesse References: <3.0.1.32.19990510081327.006e4668@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > represent an > >incorrect conclusion. Is leading toward dummy and calling a card before > >LHO plays careless or irrational? > > Yes, definitely. If "careless" didn't include playing the 10 from Q10 > doubleton on RHO's J, it wouldn't cover anything. > Oh hoh Eric ! The question was not "is it (careless or irrational)", to which Yes is a valid answer, but rather "is it careless OR irrational". The footnote to 69-70 says that normal includes careless but not irrational. While the actual play of a ten might be called careless, the fictitious play of that same ten is certainly to be named irrational. Otherwise, every single claim you make in your evening's play tonight will be contested and rejected ("yes I know you cannot lose a trick, but you might play carelessly in dropping the king of trumps under the ace, and since normal includes careless, your claim is invalid") -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 17:17:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:17:18 +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 RAA17177 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:17:07 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-201.uunet.be [194.7.9.201]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA13670 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:16:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3736F2C3.E0D12988@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:52:51 +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: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) References: <000801be9ae7$0313ba60$268393c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >-- > +++ It is not the task of an appeal committee to split a tie. The > Conditions of Contest do that. If equity on a board means the > match is tied it is then for the normal tie-splitting procedure to > operate. > > For a committee to produce two different equities or > rulings on a board is pure farce. ~ Grattan ~ +++ I do not agree. When an AC awards an adjusted score, this results in normal calculation, and perhaps a tie. Normal tie-splitting can operate. But when an AC awards an artificial score, or a split score, normal tie-splitting procedures might not work ! If through some form of convoluted calculation they arrive at a balance of +1.3 IMPs to one side, but they don't like the look of that, and award +1 in stead, why not let them add that in case of tie, their decision was 1.3 in the first place. Well, I believe they should give +1.3 in the first place, but then I don't have the abhorrance of some with regards to decimal points. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 17:17:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:17:19 +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 RAA17182 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:17:10 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-201.uunet.be [194.7.9.201]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA13665 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:16:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3736F1B8.6AB3D52C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 16:48:24 +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: Slow Pass References: <001801be9acc$90669380$c8307dc2@tsvecfob> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > Hi gang, > > Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: > > N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS) > > N E S W > 1D 3S 4NT P > 5S P 6H P(H) > P 6S P P > Dbl P P P > > Both pairs are of international standard and agree there > was a noticeable break in tempo by West before passing > South's 6H bid. > On your first post, I was asking "now give us the hand please", which you did 5 minutes later, thank you : > East held: S. Q10965432 H. - D. 5 > C. J1043 > > > Table result: 6SX-3 (N/S +500). 6H is unbeatable. > > East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form > of 'insurance'. > > > I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) > because I judged 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for > East and felt the UI (whether it suggested defence or > play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance. > I would say that this hand is worth a reasonable six tricks, plus one trick from partner for the Ace they are probably lacking, that is five down at -1100. OK, -1400 at worst. The hesitation suggests that partner has more, so maybe 6H is not made. That would suggest passing to me. I would not change the result. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 17:49:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA17249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:49:24 +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 RAA17244 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 17:49:12 +1000 Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 11 May 1999 09:48:09 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990511094841.007b29c0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:48:41 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Twins? In-Reply-To: <199905110314.UAA16252@corp.affiliation.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! >David Grabiner wrote: > >|Anne Jones writes: >| >|> Here are two hand which caused me concern at a recent National final event. >| >|> a) Session 1. Board 24 Love all Dealer West >| >|> JT2 >|> AT843 >|> J4 >|> JT4 >|> KQ98 A7643 >|> 95 762 >|> AKQ875 63 >|> 6 983 >|> 5 >|> KQJ >|> T92 >|> AKQ752 >| >|> W N E S >|> 1D P P 3C* >|> 3D 4H P 5C >|> P P P >| >|> * Alerted and explained as two suited with Hearts and Clubs (CC= confirms >|> this is the agreement) >|> Result. 5C =3D >|> Play AD:KD:QD in hope of getting trump promotion. >| >|What does 4H mean to South? If it's a splinter, then South did nothing >|wrong, as 5C is the only LA. If it's a suit, than 5C is an infraction >|unless it is a slam try. In any case, it caused no damage, since 4H is >|laydown. I agree that 4h couldnt be natural by a passed partner. So 5c is normal I think; A splinter seems sensible if 3c would have been NAT. > >I agree. And 4S is too, but the explanation probably helps E/W >get to spades rather than hinders them, since it "reveals" the=20 >double fit that's actually there. > >|As for the line of play, if South's explanation is correct, he would >|have to be 6-4 and thus void in spades, so this line of play was likely >|to have been caused by the MI. Adjust to down one. > >If the explanation is correct, there's no MI, no reason to adjust the= score. > >Let's imagine, however, that the explanation was wrong. East made a=20 >blunder on the hand by encouraging diamonds (I assume; if East had shown >three diamonds, West'd've shifted to spades). East knows he can't overruff >dummy and is looking at the SA, so he knows he wants a spade shift. >If East is at all a good player, asking for an adjusted score=20 >after that play takes a bit of chutzpah. > I dont think there is a reason to assume wrong explanation. If the cc says its the correct Information, than it is. So there is no reason to look further (exception: You are Bobby Wolff and give penalty points for CD=3DConvention Disruption...) >|> b) Session 3. Board 3 E/W Vun. Dealer S. >| >|> AT963 >|> 85 >|> JT95 >|> 62 >|> KQ42 875 >|> Q432 KJ7 >|> KQ 86432 >|> AKJ 94 >|> J >|> AT96 >|> A7 >|> QT8753 >| >|> W N E S >|> 1C >|> X P 1D 2C >|> X ...P 2D 2H >|> X 2S P P >|> X 3C P P >|> X >| >|> ...P Hesitation agreed by North. >| >|> Result 3C* - 2 e/w +300 >| >|South's 2H was suggested by North's hesitation, and pass is surely an >|LA. I don't think this caused damage, because it doesn't look like E-W >|were likely to make 3NT. > >Nah. 2H wasn't suggested by anything. It's certainly not >a logical alternative. What kind of goofball would bid a short >suit shown by a strong hand on his left? Moreover, if North had >some action in mind, he has another chance to do it. It might've >been redouble to try to nail them. He'd get to double 2D if so. >No, 2H can't be right, with or without UI. Is it a case of L73 >violation? Maybe. I think I'd have to be there to rule that way. >If anything, the hezzie mildly suggested passing as that's the best >way to get out of partner's way. But since passing is the only LA, >it doesn't suggest any LA over another. > I=B4m not so sure. 2H was an acceptable move only if partner has sth to think. (switch his S and H e.g.). Pass was clearly a LA and 2H was suggested by the thinking of partner. So you have to look for a damage. But 3NT is hopeless so 3c* -2 is the best of all possible worlds for EW.=20 The only thing to consider from this view would be, if NS deserves an additional penalty for the 2h bid. But I think, they are punished enough for there rulebreaking bid. >I wonder, by the way, what North was thinking about? Trying to=20 >bar partner? nah...partner is almost never going to bid. Even >assuming a diabolical N/S, I can't see any violations other than >of common sense. (Please, I'm not accusing N/S of being diabolical, >but simply considering whether the actions taken were consistent >with it.) He might consider a 2S bid now. The most probable thing to think about here was the mistake of not bidding 1s in first instance and if he could "repair" this mistake. (At least I think that it was a mistake) Richard PS thanks to David for rearranging the hand and the tips for formatting the hands. I always wondered how to do that. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 18:21:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA17283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:21:52 +1000 Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA17278 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:21:46 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-89.uunet.be [194.7.13.89]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA04432 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 10:21:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3737E6AF.37AFD14C@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 10:13:35 +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: Slow Pass References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 5/10/99 3:05:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Fearghal writes: > > > Your opinions would be appreciated on this ruling: > > [s] > > > > East said he would always bid 6S with that hand as a form of 'insurance'. > > > > > > I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I judged > 'Pass' > > to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI (whether it suggested > > defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance. > > I concur with your decision. This was clearly not a case of a player > "walking the dog". Further evidence in favor of the adjustment is the > decision to bid only 3S at the first opportunity. > > Alan LeBendig I don't agree with that particular argument. No need to bid 6S before you know that opponents are going to slam. Maybe 4S might be better at the first turn, but that too is not an argument. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 21:02:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:02:14 +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 VAA17581 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:02:08 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA04299 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:01:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 11 May 99 12:01 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Slow Pass 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: <001801be9acc$90669380$c8307dc2@tsvecfob> "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > N/S Vul, Dealer North (IMPS) > =20 > N E S W > 1D 3S 4NT P > 5S P 6H P(H) > P 6S P P > Dbl P P P > > Both pairs are of international standard and agree there was a = > noticeable break in tempo by West before passing South's 6H bid. > > East held: S. Q10965432 H. - D. 5 C. J1043 > > I adjusted the result to 6H made by South (N/S +1430) because I judged = > 'Pass' to be a logical alternative for East and felt the UI (whether it > suggested defence or play) reduced the potential cost of the insurance. If pard was considering a double then 6S could well be an expensive phantom - hardly low cost insurance. Were I East my best guess would be that pard considered a double based on a sure heart trick and a little bit outside but didn't because he was afraid of a pull to 6NT. It is hard for me to believe that pard was considering a sacrifice when my hand is *so different* to what I know I have promised. 3S was either a gross misbid or a tactical underbid designed to lure opponents into a cheap double of 4/5S (shame about that Blackwood response) I don't believe a player of international standard would make such a gross misbid. This does not suggest (at least to me) that 6S is going to be better than pass. If East had passed and 6H was one off but 6S went -500 I can see NS seeking a ruling on that as well (at the table I would do so). It is very difficult to put things in a clear perspective once the final result is known - maybe a poll of RGB with a ? instead of 6S would provide insight. It's all very well to say "pre-empters should show their hand then shut-up" but East has not shown anything close to this hand and surely he knows it. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 21:02:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:02:18 +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 VAA17585 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:02:11 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA04342 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:01:36 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 11 May 99 12:01 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Slow Pass 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: <007101be9b35$237cb560$3b2caccf@hdavis> "Hirsch Davis" wrote: > Lightner doubles don't work all that well when made by the opening > leader Of course the hesitation could be the time it takes for him to work out he was the opening leader! Perhaps he was considering a "Prophylactic Lightner" ie holding diamond length and believing that partner will make a Lightner double that is pulled to 6NT he doubles to prevent partner from so doing (I'm pretty sure HH pulled this off when partnering the Rabbit against Karapet/Papa). > I am convinced that the 6S bid was influenced by the UI. What bothers > me is that it still appears to be legal. The player appears to have > noted his partner's pause, flipped a mental coin to guess what it meant, > and acted. As he is legally obliged to do. We are often told that it is not good enough to ignore the hesitation. We must work out the LAs (6S/Pass seem obvious), work out what the hesitation suggests and then take the contra-indicated action. You and I, who believed the pause was an "almost double" suggesting pass would be ethically obliged to bid 6S - just like the original bidder. You, I, and the original bidder would then present our reasoning to TD/AC who may well inform us that our bridge judgement was wrong and that, in their opinion, the pause was more likely to be considering a sacrifice and that the score would be adjusted. All concerned would have behaved with perfect ethics and a PP would a travesty. Had DWS passed (with 6H-1) and found you and I on the panel then he would have had his score adjusted to 6S*-?, again with perfect ethics demonstrated by all. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 21:24:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:24:10 +1000 Received: from m1.dynamite.com.au ([203.17.154.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA17638 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:24:04 +1000 Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp112.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.26.116]) by m1.dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA13846; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:24:00 +1000 Message-ID: <008601be9ba0$d46ae340$741a25cb@bridge.dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Hirsch Davis" , Subject: Re: Slow Pass Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:24:25 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0083_01BE9BF4.A54D88C0" 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_0083_01BE9BF4.A54D88C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Hirsch Davis To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 11 May 1999 9:35 Subject: Re: Slow Pass =20 =20 =20 ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 5:37 PM Subject: Re: Slow Pass =20 =20 > > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > Pass is certainly an LA. But is it an LA that is suggested by > > the hesitation? I can't tell from the hand whether partner was = thinking of > > sacrificing or doubling. > > This was my concern as well. Perhaps the hesitation was because > partner was planning a Lightner double, holding a spade void. In = that > case, the sacrifice may not work so well. > =20 Lightner doubles don't work all that well when made by the opening = leader =20 > On the other hand, if that is what partner had, why didn't he go = ahead > and double? Perhaps it's because he can't see a second trick, in = which > case the sacrifice will be no phantom. Even if trumps break 4-1 = with > partner void (as is likely on the bidding), the sacrifice may pay = off. > (Was this IMPs or matchpoints?) > =20 If partner has JTxx of hearts and a side A, he may have been = considering a double, but passed, fearing an escape to a making NT contract. He = will not like 6S. =20 > I am far from sure of the right answer, but I am sure that the L16 > issue is "suggested over another" and not LA's. Certainly pass is > a LA in any jurisdiction. Why shouldn't the slam be going down on > bad breaks? > > Of course as Hirsch says, this may be a L73C case and not a L16A = case > at all. I know not everyone approves of that approach. > =20 No, I don't see a justification for either L16 or L73 unless one LA = is suggested over the other by the UI. The UI does not appear to = suggest either 6S or pass over the other, ruling out L16A. The 6S bidder = cannot know whether or not 6S will be advantageous to his side or not, = which rules out L73C. =20 I am convinced that the 6S bid was influenced by the UI. What = bothers me is that it still appears to be legal. The player appears to have noted = his partner's pause, flipped a mental coin to guess what it meant, and = acted. On this particular hand, he got lucky. He could just as easily have = turned a plus into a minus on a different lie of the cards. Is there = anything in the Law that prevents this? =20 Experience tells me that if a previously silent partner passes after = a hesitation during a high level auction then 9 out of 10 times they are = considering a sacrifice. You have pre-empted and will in general not be = bidding again. Why would partner be considering making a close double = in such a position? It does make sense. If this is true then the UI = does suggest 6S over pass. =20 > Finally, I don't see at all why the player couldn't have been = intending > from the beginning to "walk" the hand. Fortunately, his = intentions are > irrelevant. > =20 Agreed that intentions are irrelevant. =20 Hirsch =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BE9BF4.A54D88C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Hirsch Davis <hdavis@erols.com>
To: = bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 11 May 1999 9:35
Subject: Re: Slow=20 Pass


----- Original Message -----
From: = Steve=20 Willner <willner@cfa183.harvard.edu= >
To:=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Sent:=20 Monday, May 10, 1999 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Slow = Pass


> >=20 From: "Hirsch Davis" <hdavis@erols.com>
> = > =20 Pass is certainly an LA.  But is it an LA that is suggested = by
>=20 > the hesitation?  I can't tell from the hand whether = partner was=20 thinking
of
> > sacrificing or doubling.
>
> = This=20 was my concern as well.  Perhaps the hesitation was = because
>=20 partner was planning a Lightner double, holding a spade void.  = In=20 that
> case, the sacrifice may not work so=20 well.
>

Lightner doubles don't work all that well when = made by=20 the opening leader
<g>

> On the other hand, if = that is=20 what partner had, why didn't he go ahead
> and double?  = Perhaps=20 it's because he can't see a second trick, in which
> case the=20 sacrifice will be no phantom.  Even if trumps break 4-1 = with
>=20 partner void (as is likely on the bidding), the sacrifice may pay=20 off.
> (Was this IMPs or matchpoints?)
>

If = partner has=20 JTxx of hearts and a side A, he may have been considering = a
double, but=20 passed, fearing an escape to a making NT contract.  He will = not
like=20 6S.

> I am far from sure of the right answer, but I am = sure that=20 the L16
> issue is "suggested over another" and not=20 LA's.  Certainly pass is
> a LA in any = jurisdiction.  Why=20 shouldn't the slam be going down on
> bad = breaks?
>
> Of=20 course as Hirsch says, this may be a L73C case and not a L16A = case
>=20 at all.  I know not everyone approves of that=20 approach.
>

No, I don't see a justification for either = L16 or=20 L73 unless one LA is
suggested over the other by the UI.  = The UI=20 does not appear to suggest
either 6S or pass over the other, = ruling out=20 L16A.  The 6S bidder cannot
know whether or not 6S will be=20 advantageous to his side or not, which rules
out L73C.

I = am=20 convinced that the 6S bid was influenced by the UI.  What = bothers me=20 is
that it still appears to be legal. The player appears to have = noted=20 his
partner's pause, flipped a mental coin to guess what it = meant, and=20 acted.
On this particular hand, he got lucky.  He could just = as=20 easily have turned
a plus into a minus on a different lie of the=20 cards.  Is there anything in
the Law that prevents=20 this?
Experience=20 tells me that if a previously silent partner passes after a = hesitation=20 during a high level auction then 9 out of 10 times they are = considering a=20 sacrifice. You have pre-empted and will in general not be bidding=20 again.  Why would partner be considering making a close double = in such=20 a position? It does make sense.   If this is true then the = UI does=20 suggest 6S over pass.
>=20 Finally, I don't see at all why the player couldn't have been=20 intending
> from the beginning to "walk" the = hand. =20 Fortunately, his intentions are
> = irrelevant.
>

Agreed=20 that intentions are = irrelevant.

Hirsch

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BE9BF4.A54D88C0-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 11 22:13:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:13:54 +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 WAA17762 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:13:47 +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 IAA04007 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990511081423.006ef2dc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 08:14:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Slow Pass In-Reply-To: <199905102137.RAA22523@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:37 PM 5/10/99 -0400, Steve wrote: I haven't decided where I stand on this one, although I agree wholeheartedly with Steve that the issue is "suggested over another". However... >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> Pass is certainly an LA. But is it an LA that is suggested by >> the hesitation? I can't tell from the hand whether partner was thinking of >> sacrificing or doubling. > >This was my concern as well. Perhaps the hesitation was because >partner was planning a Lightner double, holding a spade void. In that >case, the sacrifice may not work so well. > >On the other hand, if that is what partner had, why didn't he go ahead >and double? Perhaps it's because he can't see a second trick, in which >case the sacrifice will be no phantom. Even if trumps break 4-1 with >partner void (as is likely on the bidding), the sacrifice may pay off. >(Was this IMPs or matchpoints?) Perhaps he eschewed the Lightner double because he realized he was on lead. >I am far from sure of the right answer, but I am sure that the L16 >issue is "suggested over another" and not LA's. Certainly pass is >a LA in any jurisdiction. Why shouldn't the slam be going down on >bad breaks? > >Of course as Hirsch says, this may be a L73C case and not a L16A case >at all. I know not everyone approves of that approach. > >Finally, I don't see at all why the player couldn't have been intending >from the beginning to "walk" the hand. Fortunately, his intentions are >irrelevant. Starting with 3S? If he were walking the dog, wouldn't he have bid 1S? 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 May 11 22:37:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:37:59 +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 WAA17878 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:37:49 +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 10hBn3-000MCh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:37:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 10:34:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) References: <000801be9ae7$0313ba60$268393c3@pacific> <3736F2C3.E0D12988@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3736F2C3.E0D12988@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> >-- >> +++ It is not the task of an appeal committee to split a tie. The >> Conditions of Contest do that. If equity on a board means the >> match is tied it is then for the normal tie-splitting procedure to >> operate. >> >> For a committee to produce two different equities or >> rulings on a board is pure farce. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > >I do not agree. > >When an AC awards an adjusted score, this results in normal >calculation, and perhaps a tie. Normal tie-splitting can >operate. >But when an AC awards an artificial score, or a split score, >normal tie-splitting procedures might not work ! So what? That is not their concern. If the regulations of the SO are inadequate that is not a matter for an AC, however distinguished. There still should be a single result decided on by the AC. >If through some form of convoluted calculation they arrive >at a balance of +1.3 IMPs to one side, but they don't like >the look of that, and award +1 in stead, why not let them >add that in case of tie, their decision was 1.3 in the first >place. > >Well, I believe they should give +1.3 in the first place, >but then I don't have the abhorrance of some with regards to >decimal points. I don't see the advantage in telling lies myself. If they decide the result is +1.3 then they should say so. In the actual case they came up with a split score, and there is a perfectly good Law to cover 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 Tue May 11 22:37:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:37:57 +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 WAA17877 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:37:49 +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 10hBn3-000MCi-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:37:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 13:05:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Twins? References: <199905110314.UAA16252@corp.affiliation.COM> In-Reply-To: <199905110314.UAA16252@corp.affiliation.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: [s] >If the explanation is correct, there's no MI, no reason to adjust the score. > >Let's imagine, however, that the explanation was wrong. East made a >blunder on the hand by encouraging diamonds (I assume; if East had shown >three diamonds, West'd've shifted to spades). East knows he can't overruff >dummy and is looking at the SA, so he knows he wants a spade shift. >If East is at all a good player, asking for an adjusted score >after that play takes a bit of chutzpah. In fact, none of the four people involved was a good player. Furthermore, in Wales the better players are likely to be playing distributional signals rather than encouraging/discouraging. [s] >|Was South at fault on the first hand? If he was (and the TD was >|called), he should be aware of his ethical responsibilities, and should >|get a PP on the second hand even if he isn't particualrly experienced. >I don't agree with that, but if I were there I might rule >that way after hearing South's explanation for his action. >|The 2H bid on the second hand is serious enough that an expert South >|should be penalized anyway; he's bidding 2H in the face of West having >|shown 18 points and no strong diamond fit >West hasn't shown 18 points, just extra values compared to a normal takeout >double. Maybe he has AKxx KQJxx QJx x. That'd be what I'd have, I think. >No expert South would bid 2H, best I can tell, unless he was trying >insanely hard to be ethical and thought the hesitation suggested passing. >If South is a weak player, guessing his motivation over the internet is >too hard for anyone to do, I think. Perhaps it is time we considered player levels. I often think that posts to this list from NAmerica tend to consider good players, and the rest, and to assume good players for rulings purposes. Now, I would expect 98% of rulings to involve players who cannot be described as good. But many of them are not weak players either. What do we mean by such terms? Very good player top 1% Good player next 9% Fair player next 40% Mediocre player next 25% Weak player next 15% Very weak player last 10% Is this what you mean? So, presumably about 98% of rulings involve at least one player who is not good. On this basis the four people at the table were fair to mediocre. -- 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 May 11 22:39:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:39:12 +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 WAA17904 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:39:06 +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 IAA05062 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 08:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990511083949.006f26bc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 08:39:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Twins? In-Reply-To: <01be9b41$2c2738a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:59 AM 5/11/99 +0100, Anne wrote: >Here are two hand which caused me concern at a recent National final event. > >a) Session 1. Board 24 Love all Dealer West > > JT2 > AT843 > J4 > JT4 >KQ98 A7643 >95 762 >AKQ875 63 >6 983 > 5 > KQJ > T92 > AKQ752 > >W N E S >1D P P 3C* >3D 4H P 5C >P P P > >* Alerted and explained as two suited with Hearts and Clubs (CC confirms >this is the agreement) >Result. 5C = >Play AD:KD:QD in hope of getting trump promotion. No damage; score stands. S might (IMO should, given the UI) have passed 4H, but would have gotten at least +420, possibly +450 (on the same defense). >b) Session 3. Board 3 E/W Vun. Dealer S. > > AT963 > 85 > JT95 > 62 >KQ42 875 >Q432 KJ7 >KQ 86432 >AKJ 94 > J > AT96 > A7 > QT8753 > > W N E >S > >1C > X P 1D >2C > X ...P 2D >2H > X 2S P >P > X 3C P >P > X > >...P Hesitation agreed by North. > >Result 3C* - 2 e/w +300 No damage; score stands. S might have passed over 2D, but that would have led to an E-W part-score, possibly an E-W minus. >The methods of approach are not my prime concern although I am interested to >hear what you say. My main concern is that both hands involved the same N/S. You should have a talk with this pair, explaining to them why their scores on these boards weren't adjusted, reviewing their L16A obligations, and reinforcing the message that they will not be allowed to gain (but may lose, as in these cases) if they fail to respect L16A, and may be subject to a procedural penalty to boot. If this is the continuation of a known pattern, they should be penalized, otherwise merely warned. 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 May 11 23:36:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 May 1999 23:36:57 +1000 Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18023 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 23:36:51 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (8073) by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id dWQKa04194; Tue, 11 May 1999 09:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8a50ec78.24698c0d@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:35:09 EDT Subject: Re: Slow Pass To: elandau@cais.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/11/99 8:15:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > I haven't decided where I stand on this one, although I agree > wholeheartedly with Steve that the issue is "suggested over another". > However... Maybe I have the wrong law book, but mine says ....could demonstrably have been suggested over another...... Aren't the words ....could demonstrably have been......important? Don't like them? Give me better words. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 00:32:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 00:32:42 +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 AAA20340 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 00:32:36 +1000 Received: from vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.21]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA09634 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 10:32:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 10:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905111432.KAA12859@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199905110314.UAA16252@corp.affiliation.COM> (message from Jeff Goldsmith on Mon, 10 May 1999 20:14:22 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: Twins? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith writes: > |South's 2H was suggested by North's hesitation, and pass is surely an > |LA. I don't think this caused damage, because it doesn't look like E-W > |were likely to make 3NT. > Nah. 2H wasn't suggested by anything. It's certainly not > a logical alternative. What kind of goofball would bid a short > suit shown by a strong hand on his left? As the law is written, a player "may not choose among logical alternatives one which could demonstrably have been suggetsed". However, the law is normally interpreted as, "may not choose a call over a logical alternative"; if a player chooses an illogical bid which was suggested by the information (as with hesitation Blackwood), we adjust. Whether the hesitation suggested 2H is another question. -- 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 May 12 01:07:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 01:07:58 +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 BAA20476 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 01:07:50 +1000 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id LAA22545 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 11:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA05619; Tue, 11 May 1999 11:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 11:07:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905111507.LAA05619@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: An illegal (?) ruling Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk #23 S J73 S W N E both H 63 2D(1) P 2S 3C dlr: S D KQJ764 P P 3S P C 73 P P S A86 S QT H AJ7 H KQ5 (1) alerted as flannery D T9532 D A8 -1, +100 EW C 85 C AT9642 S K9542 Using the ACBL GCC, it is illegal H T9842 to psyche an artificial opening call. D ----- At the end of the auction, the opponents C KQJ called me to the table. At first glance, I thought S had merely made a mistake, but he admitted that he had been fooling around with his Flannery call. Since his hand bore little relationship with flannery, I decided to adjust, but...how? I could have simply assigned A+, A-, and walked away, but, ever mindfull of how unsatisfactory that ruling could be, i (please note the small I) looked at the hand and decided that the most reasonable result would be 3C EW making, +110. All the parties were satisfied...except for me. The players are playing normal systems, and are somewhat above average. Should I have simply assigned A+/A-, or assigned this (or a) result? As it happened, this was the first round, and at the end of the night +110 was average-ish over 8 results. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 03:06:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 03:06:59 +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 DAA20939 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 03:06:52 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA17993 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 10:05:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199905111705.KAA17993@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Twins? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Twins? David Stevenson wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: |>David Grabiner wrote: |>If the explanation is correct, there's no MI, no reason to adjust the score. |> |>Let's imagine, however, that the explanation was wrong. East made a |>blunder on the hand by encouraging diamonds (I assume; if East had shown |>three diamonds, West'd've shifted to spades). East knows he can't overruff |>dummy and is looking at the SA, so he knows he wants a spade shift. |>If East is at all a good player, asking for an adjusted score |>after that play takes a bit of chutzpah. | | In fact, none of the four people involved was a good player. |Furthermore, in Wales the better players are likely to be playing |distributional signals rather than encouraging/discouraging. Type of signal is nearly irrelevant. If E/W were playing count signals, then East should show three in order to get the correct defense out of partner. At some level of play, however, I'd call lying to partner a good play rather than failure to err. That's why I said, "if ... a good player." Responding to Richard Bley: "Let's imagine" means "regardless of whether or not this is so, for the sake of argument, assume it is and think about the situation." | Perhaps it is time we considered player levels. I often think that |posts to this list from NAmerica tend to consider good players, and the |rest, and to assume good players for rulings purposes. Now, I would |expect 98% of rulings to involve players who cannot be described as |good. But many of them are not weak players either. What do we mean by |such terms? | |Very good player top 1% |Good player next 9% |Fair player next 40% |Mediocre player next 25% |Weak player next 15% |Very weak player last 10% | | Is this what you mean? So, presumably about 98% of rulings involve at |least one player who is not good. Depends on the universe of players. Are you including kitchen players? Country-club players? Club players? Or just tournament players? Except at tournaments, ACs are almost never held, so I figure that the lowest level player to consider is an ACBL Flight C player, whom I'd call "weak." A Flight B player is "fair," and a Flight A player is "good." Rulings below Flight C I expect are more generally "let's work this out gently and not ruffle any feathers" as compared to "let's get this one technically right." I tend to use these levels because they have real utility to me; when sitting on an AC, I get to know what event (Flight A, B, or C) was being played and the approximate levels of the players in those terms. It's not a great rating system, but it'll do for extremely rough grading, which is usually good enough. Heading off a comment at the pass (I hope!), this isn't ethnocentrism, but practicality. I'm used to using those levels because I have to deal with them. I'm also sure they can translate roughly into levels in use elsewhere, but I'm not well-enough aware of elsewhere's levels to rate in those terms. There are those here who can translate, so if translation is needed, please ask them, not me, to do it. Applying these standards to the above problem, if East were a Flight A ("good") player, I wouldn't consider redress as I think his bad result was a result of his error, nothing more, and he's good enough to be culpable for it. That is, again, assuming that I can use my own standards of culpability rather than the "standard" set. If East were weaker than Flight A, then I'd point out the error and see if East's pride was sufficient to cause him to drop the appeal. After all, if he appealed, a bunch of players would see his error. Is that more or less valuable to him than the possible score adjustment? I'd let him know that he'd likely get some matchpoints, but let him judge if it's worth it to him. It'd not be worth it to me! Again, remember, we are hypothesying the existance of real damaging misinformation, even though it's probably not the case here. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 03:14:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 03:14:26 +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 DAA20957 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 03:14:21 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA18059 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199905111713.KAA18059@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Twins? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Twins? David Grabiner wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith writes: | |> |South's 2H was suggested by North's hesitation, and pass is surely an |> |LA. I don't think this caused damage, because it doesn't look like E-W |> |were likely to make 3NT. | |> Nah. 2H wasn't suggested by anything. It's certainly not |> a logical alternative. What kind of goofball would bid a short |> suit shown by a strong hand on his left? | |As the law is written, a player "may not choose among logical |alternatives one which could demonstrably have been suggetsed". |However, the law is normally interpreted as, "may not choose a call over |a logical alternative"; if a player chooses an illogical bid which was |suggested by the information (as with hesitation Blackwood), we adjust. Not as I understand it. L16 is used when an LA is chosen illegally. L73 is used when an action that is not a logical alternative is chosen. Procedures differ for applying those different laws. They don't differ a lot, but if we are discussing the theory of application of the laws, it's worthwhile to note that we are using L73 instead of L16. |Whether the hesitation suggested 2H is another question. I said, "2H wasn't suggested by anything," meaning that I think that the hesitation wasn't suggested by 2H. Yes, I was a little flippant about it. Shrug. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 05:09:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:09:08 +1000 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21128 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:08:59 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14371) by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qXOOa16142; Tue, 11 May 1999 15:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5fec5c94.2469da20@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 15:08:16 EDT Subject: Re: Twins? 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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/11/99 8:39:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > Very good player top 1% > Good player next 9% > Fair player next 40% > Mediocre player next 25% > Weak player next 15% > Very weak player last 10% > > Is this what you mean? So, presumably about 98% of rulings involve at > least one player who is not good. > > On this basis the four people at the table were fair to mediocre. Atta boy David. You make up the percentages, you assign the players to their niche, you pick their partners, and then you make your conclusion. No room for error, of course. That's what I like to see - positive thinking -- though some might feel it a bit arbitrary, no? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 05:10:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:10:02 +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 FAA21142 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:09:56 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14371) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id bEDQa15866; Tue, 11 May 1999 15:08:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3e84fd42.2469da23@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 15:08:19 EDT Subject: Re: Twins? To: grabiner@math.lsa.umich.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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/11/99 10:34:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu writes: > Whether the hesitation suggested 2H is another question. Would you go along with it suggesting that passing wasn't the right action at this point for South? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 05:12:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:12:10 +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 FAA21160 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:12:03 +1000 From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14371) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 5VCVa26069; Tue, 11 May 1999 15:08:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 15:08:17 EDT Subject: Re: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/11/99 3:18:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > But when an AC awards an artificial score, or a split score, > normal tie-splitting procedures might not work ! > If through some form of convoluted calculation they arrive > at a balance of +1.3 IMPs to one side, but they don't like > the look of that, and award +1 in stead, why not let them > add that in case of tie, their decision was 1.3 in the first > place. For real? You mean this? Careful, you might become known as Herman "off de wall". Without further information, this committee action is incomprehensible to me. Why didn't the committee just pick the winner outright without all the foofaraw? Is Law 86B not applicable to some appeals committees? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 05:42:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:42:58 +1000 Received: from mail2.rochester.rr.com (mta@mail2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21250 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:42:52 +1000 Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mail2.rochester.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 11 May 1999 15:45:12 -0400 X-Sender: ereppert@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199905111432.KAA12859@vanceulen.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <199905110314.UAA16252@corp.affiliation.COM> (message from Jeff Goldsmith on Mon, 10 May 1999 20:14:22 -0700 (PDT)) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 15:35:40 -0400 To: David Grabiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Twins? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >As the law is written, a player "may not choose among logical >alternatives one which could demonstrably have been suggetsed". >However, the law is normally interpreted as, "may not choose a call over >a logical alternative"; if a player chooses an illogical bid which was >suggested by the information (as with hesitation Blackwood), we adjust. Pardon my ignorance but shouldn't the law be interpreted _as it is written_ rather than something else? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 05:54:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:54:34 +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 FAA21290 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:54:27 +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 <19990511195421.HEVM14950.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:54:21 -0700 Message-ID: <37388C0D.D53F8C2B@home.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 12:59:09 -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: Slow Pass References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I could have used any of 10 postings as the starting point for a few observations: Tim West-meads wrote: > If pard was considering a double then 6S could well be an expensive > phantom - hardly low cost insurance. Were I East my best guess would be > that pard considered a double based on a sure heart trick and a little bit > outside but didn't because he was afraid of a pull to 6NT. It is hard for > me to believe that pard was considering a sacrifice when my hand is *so > different* to what I know I have promised. 3S was either a gross misbid > or a tactical underbid designed to lure opponents into a cheap double of > 4/5S (shame about that Blackwood response) I don't believe a player of > international standard would make such a gross misbid. This does not > suggest (at least to me) that 6S is going to be better than pass. First of all let me say that I agree it is a "suggested over" issue rather than an "LA" issue. Second, I also agree that pard's hesitation might have been between double and pass, even though "sac or pass" might be more likely. Third, judged in a vacuum (ie not actually knowing what East thought) it might be possible that East really considered his L16 obligations and came up with what he thought best fulfilled those obligations (as if that was the most common situation - I bet in most cases people either "bid what they always would" or actually - unintentionally - are influenced by the UI, all "ethical" while incorrect all the same). However, fourth, their is direct evidence that the assumption in three above does not hold in this case. East made the ususal, self-serving (or so he might have thought!!) statement that he "always intended to sac as an insurance" or similar. He *did not* say that he "realised what L16 demanded, considered this, and them ....."! As much as we have to be critical of self-serving statements, I beleive we must use self-*damaging* statements by the OS. We have had disagreements about this before but I beleived then, and do now, that a player's own statement about what actually went on in his mind - when clearly not self-serving, should carry more evidenciary weight than what an AC *guesses* some number of this player's *assumed* peers *might* have done, etc. It seems logical, and on this I thought we had agreement, that the law's wording was chosen because actual intent by a player can normally not be objectively determined. When it can, and I realise this is rare, why not apply it? Rule for East if you want, but don't do it by arguing that he might have chosen 6S as a result of correctly applying L16, when he himself says he didn't! :-) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 05:57:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:57:40 +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 FAA21307 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 05:57:34 +1000 Received: (from jeff@localhost) by corp.affiliation.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA21489 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 12:56:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeff) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 12:56:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Goldsmith Message-Id: <199905111956.MAA21489@corp.affiliation.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Twins? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: |grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu writes: | |> Whether the hesitation suggested 2H is another question. |Would you go along with it suggesting that passing wasn't the right action at |this point for South? I wouldn't. I think it suggests passing, as that gives partner the most options to act on what he had in mind. Fortunately, that doesn't constrain us at all, because no action other than passing is reasonably a logical alternative. This is different from the common situation in which partner's slow pass shows values, encouraging us to take action, because (1) partner will be sure to have another chance, probably at a low level if it's right for him to act, (2) even considering partner's extra values, we have no safe action and, in fact, still have a minimum opening bid, and (3) LHO may inform partner that his considered choice would have been foolish, perhaps, say, by leaping to 3NT or by bidding in the suit he was about to bid. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 06:31:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 06:31:53 +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 GAA21474 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 06:31:48 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivegn3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.227]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA32331 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 16:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990511162942.00725680@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:29:42 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Slow Pass In-Reply-To: <8a50ec78.24698c0d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:35 AM 5/11/99 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 5/11/99 8:15:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com >writes: > >> I haven't decided where I stand on this one, although I agree >> wholeheartedly with Steve that the issue is "suggested over another". >> However... > >Maybe I have the wrong law book, but mine says ....could demonstrably have >been suggested over another...... > >Aren't the words ....could demonstrably have been......important? Don't like >them? Give me better words. > Of course the words in question are significant, as is the entire sentence and indeed the entire Law in which they reside, and many other things besides. Eric's usage was a shorthand reference to that particular clause, and I daresay that with the volume of disucssion over UI cases, most of us have this particular one pretty well imprinted in our memory banks. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 06:46:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 06:46:51 +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 GAA21514 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 06:46:42 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (226) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pBPOa15866 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 16:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8bd1fadb.2469f0d6@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:45:10 EDT Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling 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 246 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I don't see a basis for any relief. A Flannery hand requires 11-15 "points" and 4-5-x-x distribution. A "psych" must be a "Gross" distortion of the value or distribution of the actual cards held. This hand "resembles" the definition of Flannery both in values and distribution sufficiently to escape the lablel of "gross" misrepresentation. As to distribution, it is one card off -- he has one extra spade. As to "points" he has 9 in high cards and a void for some compensation.... Hardly a "gross" distortion. A gross distortion would be Qxxx Qxx Txx Axxx, or xxxx xxxxx Ax Qx, or xx xx xx AQxxxxx. Craig Hemphill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- Would one consider AKxx AKQxx Ax xx a psych? It is further removed from the definition of flannery than the example hand. It is five HCP points removed, while the example hand is two HCP removed. n a message dated 5/11/99 11:18:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca writes: << #23 S J73 S W N E both H 63 2D(1) P 2S 3C dlr: S D KQJ764 P P 3S P C 73 P P S A86 S QT H AJ7 H KQ5 (1) alerted as flannery D T9532 D A8 -1, +100 EW C 85 C AT9642 S K9542 Using the ACBL GCC, it is illegal H T9842 to psyche an artificial opening call. D ----- At the end of the auction, the opponents C KQJ called me to the table. At first glance, I thought S had merely made a mistake, but he admitted that he had been fooling around with his Flannery call. Since his hand bore little relationship with flannery, I decided to adjust, but...how? I could have simply assigned A+, A-, and walked away, but, ever mindfull of how unsatisfactory that ruling could be, i (please note the small I) looked at the hand and decided that the most reasonable result would be 3C EW making, +110. All the parties were satisfied...except for me. The players are playing normal systems, and are somewhat above average. Should I have simply assigned A+/A-, or assigned this (or a) result? As it happened, this was the first round, and at the end of the night +110 was average-ish over 8 results. Tony (aka ac342) >> From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 06:49:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 06:49:09 +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 GAA21535 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 06:49:04 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivegn3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.227]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20654 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 16:48:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990511164658.00725680@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 16:46:58 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling In-Reply-To: <199905111507.LAA05619@freenet3.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:07 AM 5/11/99 -0400, Tony wrote: >#23 S J73 S W N E >both H 63 2D(1) P 2S 3C >dlr: S D KQJ764 P P 3S P > C 73 P P > S A86 S QT > H AJ7 H KQ5 (1) alerted as flannery > D T9532 D A8 -1, +100 EW > C 85 C AT9642 > S K9542 Using the ACBL GCC, it is illegal > H T9842 to psyche an artificial opening call. > D ----- At the end of the auction, the opponents > C KQJ called me to the table. At first glance, > I thought S had merely made a mistake, >but he admitted that he had been fooling around with his Flannery call. >Since his hand bore little relationship with flannery, I decided to adjust, >but...how? >I could have simply assigned A+, A-, and walked away, but, ever mindfull >of how unsatisfactory that ruling could be, i (please note the small >I) looked at the hand and decided that the most reasonable result would be >3C EW making, +110. All the parties were satisfied...except for me. >The players are playing normal systems, and are somewhat above average. >Should I have simply assigned A+/A-, or assigned this (or a) result? >As it happened, this was the first round, and at the end of the night >+110 was average-ish over 8 results. > Tony (aka ac342) I find your evaluation that the hand "bore little relationship to flannery" to be a curious judgement. It is distributionally only one card removed from a standard Flannery bid, and only short of the usual HCP range (11-15) by a queen, perhaps compensated for to some extent by playing strength. Although I would not regard it as a Flannery bid in those partnerships where I do play that convention, it is close enough to the norm that I could not in good conscience call it a psych. As for how the score should be adjusted, I would like to assume that the ACBL provides guidance for appropriate score adjustment for violations which run afoul of their own regulations, but not the Laws. I would like to assume it, but I cannot. I don't know what guidance is officially available to TD's in this regard, but absent any clear counsel, it seems like a score adjustment is not a legal penalty. Perhaps a PP works better in these cases. IMO the interesting issue is the potential CPU here. North's 3S is hard to comprehend without some suspicion that pard could hold a 5-bagger. I would want to question NS closely about whether this type of situation had come up previously, and would certainly make a note of it through the recorder process or whatever, regardless of any other penalty which might be applied. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 07:49:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 07:49:21 +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 HAA21657 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 07:49:05 +1000 Received: from tsvecfob.iol.ie (dialup-011.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.203]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA29147 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:48:09 +0100 (IST) Message-ID: <000701be9bf9$11ac0240$cb307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: What is a logical alternative? Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:55:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's another 'logical alternative' teaser... E/W Vul, Dealer N (Pairs) N E S W P 1D 1H 1S 4H P P 5D P P 5H P(H) P Dbl All Pass Both pairs are regular tournament players - non expert - playing Acol (no forcing passes). West thought long and hard before passing 5H. I was called when East doubled and the facts were agreed by both sides. East held: S. K108 H. A8 D. AK10743 C. 42 The 5H bid was not wild or irrational. Table result: 5HX-4 (N/S -800). E/W have an easy 12 tricks in Diamonds although very few pairs bid slam. I adjusted the score to 5H-4 (N/S -300) because I judged Pass to be a logical alternative for East and that the hesitation suggested doubling over passing. East agreed that Pass would indeed be a consideration. = However he Doubled on points because "How could they make 5H when I have opened and my partner has made a free bid?" The appeals committee decided that Pass was not a logical alternative because if 5H is going off 4 then somebody has a Double and restored the table result. Any opinions on whether or not Pass is a logical alternative? Have we reached a stage yet on BLML where we can apply a simple test to decide what constitutes a logical alternative? If a call is a = 'consideration' does that make it a logical alternative? Regards, Fearghal =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE9BCE.58321CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here's another 'logical alternative' = teaser...
 
E/W Vul, Dealer N = (Pairs)
 
N          &nb= sp;=20 E           =20 S           =20 W
P          &nb= sp;=20 1D         =20 1H           = 1S
4H          =20 P           =20 P           =20 5D
P          &nb= sp; =20 P          =20 5H           = P(H)
P          &nb= sp;=20 Dbl          All = Pass
 
 
Both pairs are regular tournament players - non = expert -=20 playing Acol (no forcing passes).
 
West thought long and hard before passing 5H.  = I was=20 called when East doubled and the facts were agreed by both = sides.
 
East held:   S.=20 K108        H.=20 A8        D.=20 AK10743        C. 42
 
The 5H bid was not wild or irrational.
 
 
Table result:  5HX-4 (N/S -800).  E/W have = an easy=20 12 tricks in Diamonds although very few pairs bid slam.
 
 
I adjusted the score to 5H-4 (N/S = -300) because=20 I judged Pass to be a logical alternative for East and that the = hesitation=20 suggested doubling over passing.  East agreed that Pass would = indeed be a=20 consideration.  However he Doubled on points because "How = could they=20 make 5H when I have opened and my partner has made a free=20 bid?"
 
The appeals committee decided that Pass was not a = logical=20 alternative because if 5H is going off 4 then somebody has a Double and = restored=20 the table result.
 
Any opinions on whether or not Pass is a logical=20 alternative?  Have we reached a stage yet on BLML where we can = apply a=20 simple test to decide on what constitutes a logical alternative?  = If a call=20 is a 'consideration' does that make it a logical = alternative?
 
 
Regards,
 
Fearghal
   =20
 
 
 
 
 
          =
------=_NextPart_000_0035_01BE9BCE.58321CC0-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 08:51:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:51:45 +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 IAA21799 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:51:34 +1000 Received: from hdavis (207-172-121-47.s47.tnt15.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.121.47]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id SAA27473 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:51:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <020001be9c00$b5ddd620$2f79accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <000701be9bf9$11ac0240$cb307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Subject: Re: What is a logical alternative? Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 18:50:39 -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: Fearghal O'Boyle To: Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 5:55 PM Subject: What is a logical alternative? > Here's another 'logical alternative' teaser... > > E/W Vul, Dealer N (Pairs) > > N E S W > P 1D 1H 1S > 4H P P 5D > P P 5H P(H) > P Dbl All Pass > > > Both pairs are regular tournament players - non expert - playing Acol (no > forcing passes). > > West thought long and hard before passing 5H. I was called when East > doubled and the facts were agreed by both sides. > > East held: S. K108 H. A8 D. AK10743 C. 42 > > The 5H bid was not wild or irrational. > > > Table result: 5HX-4 (N/S -800). E/W have an easy 12 tricks in Diamonds > although very few pairs bid slam. > > > I adjusted the score to 5H-4 (N/S -300) because I judged Pass to be a > logical alternative for East and that the hesitation suggested doubling over > passing. Please tell me you are kidding. E has aces and kings, a far from minimum opening, and a partner who bid all the way to the five level with no further help after 1D. Once W has voluntarily bid game, the pass is probably forcing (depends on the partnership) I'm not sure what game pass is a logical alternative in, but it's not bridge. >East agreed that Pass would indeed be a consideration. = > However he Doubled on points because "How could they make 5H when I have > opened and my partner has made a free bid?" > > The appeals committee decided that Pass was not a logical alternative > because if 5H is going off 4 then somebody has a Double and restored the > table result. > A sane result, even if the AC argument makes no sense. > Any opinions on whether or not Pass is a logical alternative? Have we > reached a stage yet on BLML where we can apply a simple test to decide what > constitutes a logical alternative? If a call is a = > 'consideration' does that make it a logical alternative? > > > Regards, > > Fearghal > > W has bid to 5D voluntarily after E opened 1D. A pass by W at this point appears forcing, hesitation or no (although the call was made under preemptive pressure). The LAs are double and 6D. The likely meaning of the pass at this point is that W doesn't know what to do: double or push onward. The hesitation adds no information. E can bid what he wants (as long as it's not pass!). As it was, he got it wrong. Even if the pass was not forcing, a similar argument applies. Again, E has good offense and defense, and partner who is able to bid to the 5 level. Pass is not an option. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 08:56:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:56:53 +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 IAA21821 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:56:45 +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 SAA19772 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA23703 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:56:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 18:56:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905112256.SAA23703@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a logical alternative? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > Have we > reached a stage yet on BLML where we can apply a simple test to decide what > constitutes a logical alternative? Based on the '.ie' in your email domain, I'm guessing that this case comes from Ireland. Each "regulating authority" defines its own test. In theory, each Sponsoring Organization (club or other) could have its own definition, but in practice, most clubs within a given National Authority go along with the definition the National Authority establishes. > If a call is a 'consideration' does that make it a logical alternative? Over here in the ACBL, yes. Our definition is something like "any call the player's peers would seriously consider in a vacuum." Maybe none of those peers would actually _make_ the call, but if it wouldn't be a ridiculous mistake, it is considered a LA. So if I understand what the player meant by "a consideration," it very closely parallels the ACBL definition of LA. Most of the rest of the world adopts a definition something like "a call that 25% or more of the player's peers would make if they had no UI." (In England and Wales, the number is 30%, and I think the wording is slightly different, but the meaning is pretty close to what I wrote. I seem to recall at least one other jurisdiction where the number is 10% but with much the same wording. A few other jurisdictions have definitions worded differently.) Does anyone know what definition of LA is used in Ireland? If Ireland goes along with the "rest of world" definition, then my vote is that pass is not a LA. Many players would consider passing, and a few might even do it, but I can't imagine 25% would pass. My bridge judgment is often questioned, however, so take this as nothing more than one opinion and one based on limited information at that. > The appeals committee decided that Pass was not a logical alternative > because if 5H is going off 4 then somebody has a Double and restored the > table result. As you see, I have no quarrel with the result, but the reasoning escapes me. If the "somebody" who has a double is West (the hesitator), then he doesn't get to show it by hesitating. The relevant question is whether pass is a LA for East. If so, the double comes off. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 08:56:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:56:56 +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 IAA21822 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:56:49 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (14437) by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pRELa10989 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 18:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 18:55:16 EDT Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling 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 10 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Since we seem to agree that this hand is not sufficiently a distortion to label the Flannery bid a "psych," why are you even considering a penalty? I do agree that the hand should be delivered to a recorder, but that is the end of it. If an experienced pair appealed this case, and a deposit were required, I would vote to forfeit the deposit. Craig Hemphill In a message dated 5/11/99 4:51:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, msd@mindspring.com writes: << I find your evaluation that the hand "bore little relationship to flannery" to be a curious judgement. It is distributionally only one card removed from a standard Flannery bid, and only short of the usual HCP range (11-15) by a queen, perhaps compensated for to some extent by playing strength. Although I would not regard it as a Flannery bid in those partnerships where I do play that convention, it is close enough to the norm that I could not in good conscience call it a psych. As for how the score should be adjusted, I would like to assume that the ACBL provides guidance for appropriate score adjustment for violations which run afoul of their own regulations, but not the Laws. I would like to assume it, but I cannot. I don't know what guidance is officially available to TD's in this regard, but absent any clear counsel, it seems like a score adjustment is not a legal penalty. Perhaps a PP works better in these cases. IMO the interesting issue is the potential CPU here. North's 3S is hard to comprehend without some suspicion that pard could hold a 5-bagger. I would want to question NS closely about whether this type of situation had come up previously, and would certainly make a note of it through the recorder process or whatever, regardless of any other penalty which might be applied. Mike Dennis >> From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 11:17:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:17:11 +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 LAA22027 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:17:00 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehr3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.99]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA05583 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:16:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990511211448.0072187c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:14:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:55 PM 5/11/99 EDT, Craig H. wrote: >Since we seem to agree that this hand is not sufficiently a distortion to >label the Flannery bid a "psych," why are you even considering a penalty? I >do agree that the hand should be delivered to a recorder, but that is the end >of it. > I'm sorry, my post was perhaps unclear on this point. I would _not_ consider a penalty, either of the score adjustment or PP variety, unless I found that the bid was an illegal psych, and I am strongly disinclined from that judgement. My point was to raise the question of how to procede _if_ we judge the bid to be "illegal", given that the illegality flows not from a violation of Laws per se but rather from a deviation from SO requirements which, as far as I know, provide no specific guidance about penalties or score adjustments. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 11:30:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:30:49 +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 LAA22046 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:30:41 +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 10hNr0-0001KA-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 01:30:36 +0000 Message-ID: <1K4AFcApYMO3EwT8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 01:07:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Twins? References: <199905111705.KAA17993@corp.affiliation.COM> In-Reply-To: <199905111705.KAA17993@corp.affiliation.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >Applying these standards to the above problem, if East were a Flight A >("good") player, I wouldn't consider redress as I think his bad result >was a result of his error, nothing more, and he's good enough to be >culpable for it. That is, again, assuming that I can use my own >standards of culpability rather than the "standard" set. If East >were weaker than Flight A, then I'd point out the error and see >if East's pride was sufficient to cause him to drop the appeal. >After all, if he appealed, a bunch of players would see his error. >Is that more or less valuable to him than the possible score adjustment? >I'd let him know that he'd likely get some matchpoints, but let him >judge if it's worth it to him. It'd not be worth it to me! Again, >remember, we are hypothesying the existance of real damaging >misinformation, even though it's probably not the case here. I don't think that it is ever clear that lying to partner in defence is a good idea, until afterwards when we can see the hand. I think that bullying a Flt B player not to appeal because he has signalled honestly is terrible. I also believe that failure to peter with a doubleton in a partnership that never false-cards does not meet either the old standard "egregious" or the new World Standard "irrational, wild or gambling". -- 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 May 12 11:30:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:30:49 +1000 Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA22045 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:30:39 +1000 Received: from [194.222.6.72] (helo=blakjak.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10hNqx-0001jp-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 01:30:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 01:15:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: >Mike Dennis wrote: >> IMO the interesting issue is the potential CPU here. North's 3S is >> hard to comprehend without some suspicion that pard could hold a >> 5-bagger. I would want to question NS closely about whether this type >> of situation had come up previously, and would certainly make a note >> of it through the recorder process or whatever, regardless of any >> other penalty which might be applied. >Since we seem to agree that this hand is not sufficiently a distortion >to label the Flannery bid a "psych," why are you even considering a >penalty? I do agree that the hand should be delivered to a recorder, >but that is the end of it. A CPU is a breach of the Laws [L40B, for example] so a penalty is not unreasonable. -- 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 May 12 11:31:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:31:05 +1000 Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA22057 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:30:59 +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 10hNqx-0001Jt-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 01:30:33 +0000 Message-ID: <5KyDliABbMO3Ewyd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 01:09:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Twins? References: <5fec5c94.2469da20@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <5fec5c94.2469da20@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >In a message dated 5/11/99 8:39:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > >> Very good player top 1% >> Good player next 9% >> Fair player next 40% >> Mediocre player next 25% >> Weak player next 15% >> Very weak player last 10% >> >> Is this what you mean? So, presumably about 98% of rulings involve at >> least one player who is not good. >> >> On this basis the four people at the table were fair to mediocre. > >Atta boy David. You make up the percentages, you assign the players to their >niche, you pick their partners, and then you make your conclusion. No room >for error, of course. That's what I like to see - positive thinking -- >though some might feel it a bit arbitrary, no? I asked whether this was a reasonable basis for the meanings. I would be happy to give my opinion of their ability based on someone else's rating. As far as "picking the players" is concerned, they picked themselves. I didn't. -- 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 May 12 11:33:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:33:47 +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 LAA22086 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:33:21 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehr3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.99]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA20124 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 21:33:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990511213108.007253b4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:31:08 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is a logical alternative? In-Reply-To: <000701be9bf9$11ac0240$cb307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:55 PM 5/11/99 +0100, Fearghal wrote: >Here's another 'logical alternative' teaser... > >E/W Vul, Dealer N (Pairs) > >N E S W >P 1D 1H 1S >4H P P 5D >P P 5H P(H) >P Dbl All Pass > > >Both pairs are regular tournament players - non expert - playing Acol (no >forcing passes). > >West thought long and hard before passing 5H. I was called when East >doubled and the facts were agreed by both sides. > >East held: S. K108 H. A8 D. AK10743 C. 42 > I agree with Hirsh's evaluation that Pass is not a LA, not even by the comparatively broad standards in force in North America, and not even close by the more sensible standards in force elsewhere. I don't know what standards apply specifically in Ireland, but assume they are more similar to European norms than American ones in this respect. I would like to point out what I consider to be a significant difference between this problem and a previous high-level competitive slow pass (the pulling hand held Q eighth of spades). Because Pass is not an LA on this hand, there is no problem with either Dbl or 6D. We don't know what partner might have been considering, and his hesitation does not demonstrably suggest one of these over the other. It does suggests _either_ of these over Pass, however, and so I would not allow either one if Pass was an LA. On the previous problem, several folks opined that because partner could have been considering either doubling or sacrificing, the hesitation really suggests nothing at all. This is wrong, IMO, as I have argued before. Partner's hesitation demonstrably suggests action in favor of inaction, and as such, any active alternative becomes more likely to succeed, relative to passing, than it would be in the absence of UI. Mike Dennis p.s. sorry for tangling the threads :) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 12:21:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:21:20 +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 MAA22210 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:21:08 +1000 From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (8037) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pEEYa13996 for ; Tue, 11 May 1999 22:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <660bc055.246a3e0f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:14:39 EDT Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling 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 10 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/11/99 9:32:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: << Craig wrote: >Mike Dennis wrote: >> IMO the interesting issue is the potential CPU here. North's 3S is >> hard to comprehend without some suspicion that pard could hold a >> 5-bagger. I would want to question NS closely about whether this type >> of situation had come up previously, and would certainly make a note >> of it through the recorder process or whatever, regardless of any >> other penalty which might be applied. >Since we seem to agree that this hand is not sufficiently a distortion >to label the Flannery bid a "psych," why are you even considering a >penalty? I do agree that the hand should be delivered to a recorder, >but that is the end of it. A CPU is a breach of the Laws [L40B, for example] so a penalty is not unreasonable. >> OK, no problem.... Concealed Partnership Understanding..... Did not comprehend the abbreviation. Well, that is exactly why I say send it to the recorder. Precisely. But without evidence of past prior behavior, how can you even present such a case? Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 16:05:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 16:05:10 +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 QAA22505 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 16:05:00 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id BAA59977 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 01:04:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 01GY705L Wed, 12 May 99 01:02:49 Message-ID: <9905120102.01GY705@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 12 May 99 01:02:49 Subject: AWAY FROM WEDNESDAY To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Good travels and good fortunes to you! Roger Pewick B>For those of you who either enjoy my posts, or would go a long way to B>avoid them, I expect them to be in short supply over the coming weeks! B>On Wednesday I am going to Juan-les-Pins in the South of France to B>play in the International Congress there with a client. B>I return late on Tuesday, and leave the next morning for Moscow! I B>shall be visiting a friend, and directing in the Moscow Invitational B>Tournament. B>After returning on the Tuesday, I shall have a little rest before B>leaving on Friday to play in an EBU Congress in Bournemouth. I have B>played with the same partner the last two years: this year he messed up B>his arrangements, so I am playing with his wife instead - and finishing B>ahead of her husband will be the number one aim! I shall then return on B>Tuesday. 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 Wed May 12 16:05:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA22517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 16:05:18 +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 QAA22512 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 16:05:12 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id BAA59982 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 01:05:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 01H0505M Wed, 12 May 99 01:02:52 Message-ID: <9905120102.01H0505@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 12 May 99 01:02:52 Subject: CHANGE OF EXPLANATION To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quite a mess, really. L21B2 gives S the opportunity to change their call a second time if W changes. However, I suspect that information from the withdrawn call will have damaged EW- necessitating an adjusted score. Now consider. L21A says that there is no recourse for a call based on one's own misunderstanding. On the original time around, apparently S bid 2S based on his own misunderstanding. Does this in fact mean that for the 'third' time around [presuming that W changes back to pass] that because there is no recourse then the 2S call must be repeated even though contrary to L21B2? Whereby L25B would be applied if S [wanted to] change 2S to pass or something else. Roger Pewick B>Hi all, B>I was asked the following question by a club director. B>The auction goes: B>N E S W B>1NT (X)* 2H (P) B>2S B>* alerted and described as single suiter B>Before East had bid. North said sorry 2H should have been alerted as a B>transfer to Spades. B>The director was called. B>Now West had a hand that didn't want to compete over the likely Spade B>single suiter in partners hand but could compete in the other 3 suits. B>When the South bid was described as a transfer they wished to change B>their bid. B>The director ruled that as E hadn't bid that W could change their B>bid..... B>They did so to 3C (correctible).... B>Question 1: What are the prohibitions on North given that they have B>already accepted the transfer once with 2S? B>The director was a bit flustered and took North away from the B>table....where North now said, well actually 2H WAS natural.... B>Question 2: Now what? B>If someone would be kind enough to tell me which laws are involved I B>will pass on all comments to the director involved. B>Best Regards, B>Peter Newman B>http://nswba.com.au B>NSWBA - Webmaster B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 18:48:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA22766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:48:38 +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 SAA22761 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:48:31 +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 KAA27122 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 10:48:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905120848.KAA27122@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:49:43 +0200 Subject: Mess after Misbid 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 Last night at the club...... Matchpoints, dealer South, NS vul. J AQ6 AKT54 KQ76 Q92 AK74 HT9854 J2 Q87 62 2 A8543 T8653 73 J93 JT9 W N E S - - - p 2D(1) 2NT(2) p 3H(3) p 4H(4) 4S(5) X(6) p p p (1) Multi, alerted (2) This is where the trouble starts. It offers 17-19 HCP balanced over a multi (according to CC, so not alerted), but apparently North was thinking of a different kind of two-opening, and believed that his 2NT showed 17+ with any distribution. (3) transfer opposite the supposed 17-19 balanced hand, but in North's belief real, so duly not alerted and (4) raised to game. (5) So pard has a weak two in spades, let's sacrifice. (6) yummy..... 4Sx is down two for a near-bottom, and EW call the cops. How do you rule? (Results of the hand: peaceful partscores in hearts by EW and in diamonds by NS, one lucky devil made 3NT) Cheers, JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 19:45:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 19:45:46 +1000 Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA22905 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 19:45:39 +1000 Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <8974-12917>; Wed, 12 May 1999 11:45:20 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id JAA11097; Wed, 12 May 1999 09:49:20 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "'Fearghal O'Boyle'" , "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: What is a logical alternative? Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:27:35 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F384@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837461623@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Here's another 'logical alternative' teaser... > >E/W Vul, Dealer N (Pairs) > >N E S W >P 1D 1H 1S >4H P P 5D >P P 5H P(H) >P Dbl All Pass > > >Both pairs are regular tournament players - non expert - playing Acol (no >forcing passes). > >West thought long and hard before passing 5H. I was called when East >doubled and the facts were agreed by both sides. > >East held: S. K108 H. A8 D. AK10743 C. 42 > >The 5H bid was not wild or irrational. > > >Table result: 5HX-4 (N/S -800). E/W have an easy 12 tricks in Diamonds >although very few pairs bid slam. > > >I adjusted the score to 5H-4 (N/S -300) because I judged Pass to be a >logical alternative for East and that the hesitation suggested doubling over >passing. East agreed that Pass would indeed be a consideration. = >However he Doubled on points because "How could they make 5H when I have >opened and my partner has made a free bid?" > >The appeals committee decided that Pass was not a logical alternative >because if 5H is going off 4 then somebody has a Double and restored the >table result. > >Any opinions on whether or not Pass is a logical alternative? Have we >reached a stage yet on BLML where we can apply a simple test to decide what >constitutes a logical alternative? If a call is a = >'consideration' does that make it a logical alternative? Again, please send complete distributions. However, with a partner who is apparently prepared to play 5D (he is not sacrificing, to be sure!), pass is not an option. It looks to me that partner is deciding whether to double 5H or to bid 6D, so that a pass would be forcing, hence the double allowed. On the other hand, East declared that pass to him was an option, but that 5H must go down by sheer force: East opened and West bid 5D on his own. Well, he is of course absolutely right with his statement, so this shows again that his double is likely not based on partner's hesitation. Therefore I would let the table result stand. Regards, Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 19:58:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 19:58:33 +1000 Received: from cookson.iclweb.com (cookson.iclweb.com [194.176.194.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA22944 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 19:58:25 +1000 Received: from markl.slh06.icl.co.uk ([194.176.195.87]) by cookson.iclweb.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with SMTP id AAA14366 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 10:58:07 +0100 Message-ID: <00c601be9c5e$1f1855e0$57c3b0c2@markl.slh06.icl.co.uk> From: markl@iclweb.com (Mark Lincoln) To: Subject: Re: What is a logical alternative? Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:59:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Here's another 'logical alternative' teaser... > >E/W Vul, Dealer N (Pairs) > >N E S W >P 1D 1H 1S >4H P P 5D >P P 5H P(H) >P Dbl All Pass > > >Both pairs are regular tournament players - non expert - playing Acol (no >forcing passes). > >West thought long and hard before passing 5H. I was called when East >doubled and the facts were agreed by both sides. > >East held: S. K108 H. A8 D. AK10743 C. 42 > >The 5H bid was not wild or irrational. > > >Table result: 5HX-4 (N/S -800). E/W have an easy 12 tricks in Diamonds >although very few pairs bid slam. > > >Any opinions on whether or not Pass is a logical alternative? Have we >reached a stage yet on BLML where we can apply a simple test to decide what >constitutes a logical alternative? If a call is a = >'consideration' does that make it a logical alternative? > 1. I would be surprised if any regular tournament player would consider PASS as an option here. In fact it is not clear what the best approach is (Double, 5S, or 6D are all sensible). The East hand is far too rich in defense to let NV opponents push you around, so even without "Forcing pass" agreements, East must, therfore, take some positive (non PASS) action. 2. Whatever action East took (unless it was the most preferable to NS) would probably result in a call to the director.If I were the director I would have let the table result stand, and if NS appealed I would fully expect them to lose their deposit, and receive a lecture on wasting appeals committee's time. Cheers markl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 20:29:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 20:29:23 +1000 Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA23002 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 20:29:14 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-207.uunet.be [194.7.9.207]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22154 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37394D9C.F8D51CE5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:45:00 +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: An illegal (?) ruling References: <8bd1fadb.2469f0d6@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > > I don't see a basis for any relief. A Flannery hand requires 11-15 "points" > and 4-5-x-x distribution. A "psych" must be a "Gross" distortion of the > value or distribution of the actual cards held. This hand "resembles" the > definition of Flannery both in values and distribution sufficiently to escape > the lablel of "gross" misrepresentation. > I agree with that analysis. > > Would one consider AKxx AKQxx Ax xx a psych? It is further removed from the > definition of flannery than the example hand. It is five HCP points removed, > while the example hand is two HCP removed. > That is not a psych either, that is misinformation pure and simple. I could open that hand 2D in my system with one partner (21-22 NT), and if he alerted as Flannery, I would not attempt to try and cover up by saying it was a psyche. The original hand would not conform to any other explanation of it being an off-center Flannery opening. Only possible ruling is misinformation : it is not traditional Flannery, but "enhanced Flannery" they are playing. I'de rule misinformation, no damage. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 20:29:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 20:29:38 +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 UAA23009 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 20:29:27 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-207.uunet.be [194.7.9.207]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22171; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:29:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37395044.5A24C082@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:56:20 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com, Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 5/11/99 3:18:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > > > But when an AC awards an artificial score, or a split score, > > normal tie-splitting procedures might not work ! > > If through some form of convoluted calculation they arrive > > at a balance of +1.3 IMPs to one side, but they don't like > > the look of that, and award +1 in stead, why not let them > > add that in case of tie, their decision was 1.3 in the first > > place. > > For real? You mean this? Careful, you might become known as Herman "off de > wall". Without further information, this committee action is > incomprehensible to me. Why didn't the committee just pick the winner > outright without all the foofaraw? Is Law 86B not applicable to some appeals > committees? I was not commenting on the AC decision itself, which I don't remember and have not followed all too closely. I was commenting on the AC's decision to give a tie-breaking decision on top of their decision. L86B has no bearing on ties. It deals with both teams losing. If they lose by exactly the same amount, this is just as much a tie as 0-0. When there are no artificial scores, a tie-break process is needed. But when there are artificial scores, I prefer that score to be decimal, and thus provide the tie-breaking procedure. Isn't that why time penalties in team events are often given in half-IMPs nowadays ? To avoid ties ? As to "picking the winner", they tried not to do so. They tried to have us believe they did not know the other scores. They gave a ruling on the board itself. They realised the match must have been close, or the appeal would not be there. So they decided to give a half IMP somewhere as a tie-breaker, if needed. I find those actions commendable. Of course I may be ascribing intentions to this AC that they may not have had. If so, their actions may be less commendable. But if an AC acts as I describe above, I would find it commendable. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 20:29:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 20:29:53 +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 UAA23024 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 20:29:42 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-207.uunet.be [194.7.9.207]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22187 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:29:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <373951C7.1154552E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:02:47 +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: Twins? References: <199905110314.UAA16252@corp.affiliation.COM> (message from Jeff Goldsmith on Mon, 10 May 1999 20:14:22 -0700 (PDT)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > >As the law is written, a player "may not choose among logical > >alternatives one which could demonstrably have been suggetsed". > >However, the law is normally interpreted as, "may not choose a call over > >a logical alternative"; if a player chooses an illogical bid which was > >suggested by the information (as with hesitation Blackwood), we adjust. > > Pardon my ignorance but shouldn't the law be interpreted _as it is > written_ rather than something else? > Wellcome to the list Ed, and no need to apologise for ignorance. We are all ignorant, but some are less ignorant than others. It is a well established fact on this list that the Laws should be interpreted as they are interpreted by this list, in all cases where this list can find a consensus opinion. (1% of cases) Barring that, the Laws should be interpreted in the way that Ton, Grattan and others tell us they should be interpreted, in all cases where they tell us this. (5% of cases) Barring that, the Law should be interpreted as anyone bloody well likes, according to the writer, and differently according to another writer, and in a third way according to the De Wael school, of which I am the sole member. (94% of cases) But nowhere is it suggested that the Laws should be interpreted as they are written ! What gave you that idea ? Lots of smileys added for those who don't realise I'm joking. Or am I ? :-) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 20:30:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA23043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 20:30:01 +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 UAA23037 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 20:29:52 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-207.uunet.be [194.7.9.207]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA22193 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:29:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3739550D.619A6EA6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:16:45 +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: Grouping alternatives References: <3.0.1.32.19990511213108.007253b4@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (SA = suggested alternative) "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: about two threads in one message : > > I would like to point out what I consider to be a significant difference > between this problem (irish 5H after hesitation) and a previous high-level competitive slow pass (the > pulling hand held Q eighth of spades). Because Pass is not an LA on this > hand, there is no problem with either Dbl or 6D. We don't know what partner > might have been considering, and his hesitation does not demonstrably > suggest one of these over the other. It does suggests _either_ of these > over Pass, however, and so I would not allow either one if Pass was an LA. > > On the previous problem, several folks opined that because partner could > have been considering either doubling or sacrificing, the hesitation really > suggests nothing at all. This is wrong, IMO, as I have argued before. > Partner's hesitation demonstrably suggests action in favor of inaction, and > as such, any active alternative becomes more likely to succeed, relative to > passing, than it would be in the absence of UI. > I understand what Mike is hinting at, but I don't think he is applying it correctly. In the Irish case, the SA would be Pass, and Pass is not a LA. Between Double and 6Di, there is no SA by the UI. In Mike's view of the 8card Spades case, the SA would be "action", and Pass would be a LA, so he rules against 6Sp bidder. I agree with Mike that sometimes one must group certain bids into one alternative, and then judge whether or not that alternative is "suggested". But I don't believe he groups correctly in the 6Spades case. When grouping the alternatives, there are 2 groups : defending 6Hearts, or rescuing in 6Spades. I conclude from that thread, that the Suggested Alternative is defense, and so the bid of 6Spades may well be the actively ethical one. I also agree with someone else that one should not attribute intent of active ethics to a player who does not claim so himself, something which makes the case more difficult even. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 21:05:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 21:05:20 +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 VAA23129 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 21:05:13 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA03451 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:04:37 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 12 May 99 12:04 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Slow Pass 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: <37388C0D.D53F8C2B@home.com> Jan Kamras wrote: > > However, fourth, their is direct evidence that the assumption in three > above does not hold in this case. East made the ususal, self-serving (or > so he might have thought!!) statement that he "always intended to sac as > an insurance" or similar. He *did not* say that he "realised what L16 > demanded, considered this, and them ....."! As much as we have to be > critical of self-serving statements, I beleive we must use > self-*damaging* statements by the OS. I would be surprised, and saddened, if a player of "international standard" was unaware of his L16 obligations. Perhaps he did what I (and I assume many others) do when either unable to identify logical alternatives or work out what UI suggests - "bid what I would have anyway". I don't see the statement as either damning or helpful to his case, just a reason for the director to investigate further. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 22:14:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:14:04 +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 WAA23296 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:13:58 +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 10hXtW-0001lB-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:13:50 +0000 Message-ID: <6Y4$3JAHHWO3EwTv@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:11:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling References: <660bc055.246a3e0f@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <660bc055.246a3e0f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: >In a message dated 5/11/99 9:32:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > ><< Craig wrote: > >Mike Dennis wrote: > > >> IMO the interesting issue is the potential CPU here. North's 3S is > >> hard to comprehend without some suspicion that pard could hold a > >> 5-bagger. I would want to question NS closely about whether this type > >> of situation had come up previously, and would certainly make a note > >> of it through the recorder process or whatever, regardless of any > >> other penalty which might be applied. > > >Since we seem to agree that this hand is not sufficiently a distortion > >to label the Flannery bid a "psych," why are you even considering a > >penalty? I do agree that the hand should be delivered to a recorder, > >but that is the end of it. > > A CPU is a breach of the Laws [L40B, for example] so a penalty is not > unreasonable. >> > >OK, no problem.... Concealed Partnership Understanding..... Did not >comprehend the abbreviation. Well, that is exactly why I say send it to the >recorder. Precisely. But without evidence of past prior behavior, how can >you even present such a case? As with any other judgement decision, you look at all the evidence and come to a decision. If the evidence suggests a CPU strongly enough, perhaps a PP is suitable. After all, that is how I treat fielded psyches! -- 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 May 12 22:14:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:14:07 +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 WAA23297 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:13:58 +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 10hXtW-0001lA-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:13:51 +0000 Message-ID: <7or$LFAIFWO3EwQR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:08:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling References: <8bd1fadb.2469f0d6@aol.com> <37394D9C.F8D51CE5@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37394D9C.F8D51CE5@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >RCraigH@aol.com wrote: >> Would one consider AKxx AKQxx Ax xx a psych? It is further removed from the >> definition of flannery than the example hand. It is five HCP points removed, >> while the example hand is two HCP removed. >That is not a psych either, that is misinformation pure and >simple. If the pair concerned play 2D as 11-15, and they open the above hand with 2D, then they have psyched. It is a gross distortion of the values promised. -- 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 May 12 22:14:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:14:23 +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 WAA23315 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:14:17 +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 IAA17484 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990512081506.006f329c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:15:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Slow Pass In-Reply-To: <8a50ec78.24698c0d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:35 AM 5/11/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: >In a message dated 5/11/99 8:15:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com >writes: > >> I haven't decided where I stand on this one, although I agree >> wholeheartedly with Steve that the issue is "suggested over another". >> However... > >Maybe I have the wrong law book, but mine says ....could demonstrably have >been suggested over another...... > >Aren't the words ....could demonstrably have been......important? Don't like >them? Give me better words. Yes, they're important, and we all know they're there. In this context, a bid is "suggested over another" only if we can demonstrate that it is. Feelings or suppositions aren't enough -- at least since the WBFLC added "demonstrably" to the text. Before 1977 the word was "reasonably" -- and ACs, particularly ACBL ACs, were inclined to find that any winning bid made in the presence of UI "might reasonably have been suggested" to the player who found the bid. 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 May 12 22:14:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:14:10 +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 WAA23301 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:14:01 +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 10hXtZ-0001lf-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:13:54 +0000 Message-ID: <84Z+vBABDWO3EwQ7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:06:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Tie-breaker (was Re: Swedish LK ruling) References: <37395044.5A24C082@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37395044.5A24C082@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >> >> In a message dated 5/11/99 3:18:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >> hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: >> >> > But when an AC awards an artificial score, or a split score, >> > normal tie-splitting procedures might not work ! >> > If through some form of convoluted calculation they arrive >> > at a balance of +1.3 IMPs to one side, but they don't like >> > the look of that, and award +1 in stead, why not let them >> > add that in case of tie, their decision was 1.3 in the first >> > place. >> >> For real? You mean this? Careful, you might become known as Herman "off de >> wall". Without further information, this committee action is >> incomprehensible to me. Why didn't the committee just pick the winner >> outright without all the foofaraw? Is Law 86B not applicable to some appeals >> committees? > >I was not commenting on the AC decision itself, which I >don't remember and have not followed all too closely. > >I was commenting on the AC's decision to give a tie-breaking >decision on top of their decision. > >L86B has no bearing on ties. It deals with both teams >losing. If they lose by exactly the same amount, this is >just as much a tie as 0-0. > >When there are no artificial scores, a tie-break process is >needed. >But when there are artificial scores, I prefer that score to >be decimal, and thus provide the tie-breaking procedure. > >Isn't that why time penalties in team events are often given >in half-IMPs nowadays ? To avoid ties ? > >As to "picking the winner", they tried not to do so. >They tried to have us believe they did not know the other >scores. >They gave a ruling on the board itself. >They realised the match must have been close, or the appeal >would not be there. >So they decided to give a half IMP somewhere as a >tie-breaker, if needed. > >I find those actions commendable. > >Of course I may be ascribing intentions to this AC that they >may not have had. If so, their actions may be less >commendable. > >But if an AC acts as I describe above, I would find it >commendable. ACs have absolute rights [in L12C3 jurisdictions] to assign a score in line with the Laws. But why is it commendable when they assign a score in contravention of the Laws? When the Director assigns non-balancing adjusted scores (see Law 12C) in knockout play, each contestant's score on the board is calculated separately. The average of the two scores is then assigned to both contestants. L86B is nothing to do with both teams losing or tying. It is a Law that tells you what to do with assigned scores that do not balance in k/o matches. Thus, if you have a k/o match and you have non-balancing assigned scores, this Law applies: no TD or AC can calculate the result in any other way, because that would be against the Law. Suppose you play a 1-board match. On this board team A get assigned -2 imp and Team B get assigned -1 imp. No TD nor AC can then do anything apart from let Team A score the board as (-2 +1)/2, ie -0.5 imp. Ahah, you say, I have let Team B win! No, not necessarily: the CoC could require a lead of 3 imps otherwise extra boards are played: that is legal. But it would not be legal for a TD/AC who has decided to assign scores as above then to say that they will change their assigned score to Team A gets -3 imps if there is a tie otherwise. ------- Note that I believe it is a mistake in the Law that the fourth word in it [as quoted above] is "assigns". I believe it should be "awards". Technically this Law does not apply to artificial scores, but I cannot believe it meant this distinction. In correspondence with The Bridge World while Kaplan was still at the helm they told me the distinction was unnecessary and that it did apply to artificial scores. The letter was unsigned so I do not know whether this was Kaplan. I recommend the WBFLC to change the word assigns to awards in 2007. -- 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 May 12 22:22:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:22:03 +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 WAA23363 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:21:57 +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 IAA17733 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990512082248.006f164c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:22:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Twins? In-Reply-To: <199905111705.KAA17993@corp.affiliation.COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:05 AM 5/11/99 -0700, Jeff wrote: >Applying these standards to the above problem, if East were a Flight A >("good") player, I wouldn't consider redress as I think his bad result >was a result of his error, nothing more, and he's good enough to be >culpable for it. Certainly culpable, in the sense that we would expect a Flight A player to know better than to make this error most of the time, but I think calling it either "egregious" or "wild, gambling or irrational" is going much too far. Either criterion suggests something a lot stronger than merely "he should have known better". 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 May 12 22:38:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:38:58 +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 WAA23426 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:38:52 +1000 Received: from ip94.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.94]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990512123845.RHUN3593.fep2@ip94.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 14:38:45 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mess after Misbid Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:34:55 GMT Message-ID: <37517551.6691581@post.tele.dk> References: <199905120848.KAA27122@hera.frw.uva.nl> In-Reply-To: <199905120848.KAA27122@hera.frw.uva.nl> 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 Wed, 12 May 1999 10:49:43 +0200 skrev Jan Peter Pals: >HT9854 J2 I take it that H means K here. >(3) transfer opposite the supposed 17-19 balanced hand, >but in North's belief real, so duly not alerted That is MI. >How do you rule? Law 40C, adjustet score, and law 12C2: ...a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. ... I think the contract should be 3S down 2 in both cases. It is not unreasonable for E to lead AC and a small club to trump, trump to the A and another club. Later W cashes QD (or E trumps D with a small trump) and E cashes KS. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 12 22:39:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:39:54 +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 WAA23442 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:39:48 +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 IAA18480 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990512084039.006f268c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:40:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is a logical alternative? In-Reply-To: <000701be9bf9$11ac0240$cb307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:55 PM 5/11/99 +0100, Fearghal wrote: >E/W Vul, Dealer N (Pairs) > >N E S W >P 1D 1H 1S >4H P P 5D >P P 5H P(H) >P Dbl All Pass > >Both pairs are regular tournament players - non expert - playing Acol (no >forcing passes). > >West thought long and hard before passing 5H. I was called when East >doubled and the facts were agreed by both sides. > >East held: S. K108 H. A8 D. AK10743 C. 42 > >The 5H bid was not wild or irrational. > >Table result: 5HX-4 (N/S -800). E/W have an easy 12 tricks in Diamonds >although very few pairs bid slam. > >I adjusted the score to 5H-4 (N/S -300) because I judged Pass to be a >logical alternative for East and that the hesitation suggested doubling over >passing. East agreed that Pass would indeed be a consideration. = >However he Doubled on points because "How could they make 5H when I have >opened and my partner has made a free bid?" > >The appeals committee decided that Pass was not a logical alternative >because if 5H is going off 4 then somebody has a Double and restored the >table result. > >Any opinions on whether or not Pass is a logical alternative? Have we >reached a stage yet on BLML where we can apply a simple test to decide what >constitutes a logical alternative? If a call is a = >'consideration' does that make it a logical alternative? I wouldn't consider pass an LA, although an ACBL AC might not agree with me. Absent discussion, I would, at the table, assume that W's pass was forcing. (Not necessarily that he intended it as such, but assuming it wasn't and passing would be far more likely to lead to a disaster.) 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 May 12 22:42:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:42:22 +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 WAA23456 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:42:16 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA26179 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 12:41:31 GMT Message-ID: <37397703.C24953F0@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:41:39 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mess after Misbid References: <199905120848.KAA27122@hera.frw.uva.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id MAA26179 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals a =E9crit : > Last night at the club...... > > Matchpoints, dealer South, NS vul. > > J > AQ6 > AKT54 > KQ76 > Q92 AK74 > HT9854 J2 > Q87 62 > 2 A8543 > T8653 > 73 > J93 > JT9 > > W N E S > - - - p > 2D(1) 2NT(2) p 3H(3) > p 4H(4) 4S(5) X(6) > p p p > > (1) Multi, alerted > (2) This is where the trouble starts. It offers 17-19 HCP > balanced over a multi (according to CC, so not alerted), > but apparently North was thinking of a different kind of > two-opening, and believed that his 2NT showed 17+ with > any distribution. > (3) transfer opposite the supposed 17-19 balanced hand, > but in North's belief real, so duly not alerted and > (4) raised to game. > (5) So pard has a weak two in spades, let's sacrifice. > (6) yummy..... > > 4Sx is down two for a near-bottom, and EW call the cops. > How do you rule? > > (Results of the hand: peaceful partscores in hearts by EW > and in diamonds by NS, one lucky devil made 3NT) > > Cheers, JP A simple text-book problem IMO: EW were damaged by the failure to alert 3H bid, which they are entitled to know to be, by agreement, a transfer bid. Score to be adjusted to the more favorable likely result, absent the infraction... With the correct explanation, East might possibly infer partner's heart suit and double. South might pass, having no more information to transmit (especially with the UI that partner failed to alert), and North might also pass, waiting still a little more time to wake up. 1700 EW, -1700 NS. (I assumed W's "H" was heart king?) 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 May 12 22:59:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:59:27 +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 WAA23496 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 22:59:20 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19342 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 08:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990512090010.006f7cd4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 09:00:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Mess after Misbid In-Reply-To: <199905120848.KAA27122@hera.frw.uva.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:49 AM 5/12/99 +0200, Jan wrote: >Last night at the club...... > >Matchpoints, dealer South, NS vul. > > J > AQ6 > AKT54 > KQ76 >Q92 AK74 >HT9854 J2 >Q87 62 >2 A8543 > T8653 > 73 > J93 > JT9 > >W N E S >- - - p >2D(1) 2NT(2) p 3H(3) >p 4H(4) 4S(5) X(6) >p p p > >(1) Multi, alerted >(2) This is where the trouble starts. It offers 17-19 HCP >balanced over a multi (according to CC, so not alerted), >but apparently North was thinking of a different kind of >two-opening, and believed that his 2NT showed 17+ with >any distribution. >(3) transfer opposite the supposed 17-19 balanced hand, >but in North's belief real, so duly not alerted and >(4) raised to game. >(5) So pard has a weak two in spades, let's sacrifice. >(6) yummy..... > >4Sx is down two for a near-bottom, and EW call the cops. >How do you rule? Sounds like 3H was a transfer by agreement, so E was indeed given MI. Had he known that 3H showed spades, he would presumably have passed 4H, at which point S, playing N for a balanced hand, would bid 4S, which E is likely to double. At quick glance, without much analysis, I'm inclined to adjust to 4SX-4 by N-S (E-W are reasonably likely to come to 6 trumps and the CA), -1100/+1100. 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 May 12 23:26:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 23:26:47 +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 XAA23557 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 23:26:39 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28457; Wed, 12 May 1999 13:25:28 GMT Message-ID: <3739814F.942357AC@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:25:35 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bertel Lund Hansen CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mess after Misbid References: <199905120848.KAA27122@hera.frw.uva.nl> <37517551.6691581@post.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id NAA28457 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen a =E9crit : > Wed, 12 May 1999 10:49:43 +0200 skrev Jan Peter Pals: > > >HT9854 J2 > > I take it that H means K here. or R but only because I am french. > > > >(3) transfer opposite the supposed 17-19 balanced hand, > >but in North's belief real, so duly not alerted > > That is MI. agreed > > > >How do you rule? > > Law 40C, adjustet score, and law 12C2: > ...a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was > likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending > side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. ... > > I think the contract should be 3S down 2 in both cases. It is not > unreasonable for E to lead AC and a small club to trump, trump to > the A and another club. Later W cashes QD (or E trumps D with a > small trump) and E cashes KS. How could it be 3S when north has already bid 4H? The infraction was the misinformation given to EW (especially E) about S's 3H, not the use North made of it: 4H bid is not an infraction and is not subject to redress. Damage only occured at east's turn to bid, when North had already (mis)bid 4H. In the absence of UI, CPU and smoke signals, NS are still allowed to bid as (bad as) they like! JP Rocafort > > > Bertel > -- > Denmark, Europe > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) -- ___________________________________________________ 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 May 12 23:53:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 May 1999 23:53:45 +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 XAA23650 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 23:53:38 +1000 Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 12 May 1999 15:53:06 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990512155344.007b2c30@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:53:44 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Mess after Misbid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:49 12.05.99 +0200, you wrote: >Last night at the club...... > >Matchpoints, dealer South, NS vul. > > J > AQ6 > AKT54 > KQ76 >Q92 AK74 >HT9854 J2 >Q87 62 >2 A8543 > T8653 > 73 > J93 > JT9 > >W N E S >- - - p >2D(1) 2NT(2) p 3H(3) >p 4H(4) 4S(5) X(6) >p p p > >(1) Multi, alerted >(2) This is where the trouble starts. It offers 17-19 HCP >balanced over a multi (according to CC, so not alerted), >but apparently North was thinking of a different kind of >two-opening, and believed that his 2NT showed 17+ with >any distribution. >(3) transfer opposite the supposed 17-19 balanced hand, >but in North's belief real, so duly not alerted and >(4) raised to game. >(5) So pard has a weak two in spades, let's sacrifice. >(6) yummy..... > > >4Sx is down two for a near-bottom, and EW call the cops. >How do you rule? > 3H was mixexplained. It showed a 5card Spade suit according to system and the opps have a right to know that. With correct expl. E wouldnt have bid 4S. South would have bid 4S and E would have doubled (you can argue about that I think). What would have happened there?: 4S*-5 seems right to me (the same 5 tricks as in defence; no so clear, but reasonable I think) >(Results of the hand: peaceful partscores in hearts by EW >and in diamonds by NS, one lucky devil made 3NT) No peaceful score here... Remark: There is no place here for a AC to adjust the score doing equity. It seems quite clear what would have happened with correct explanation. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 13 00:35:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA25982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 00:35:58 +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 AAA25977 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 00:35:51 +1000 Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk (unknown.npl.co.uk [139.143.1.16] (may be forged)) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA02870; Wed, 12 May 1999 15:35:48 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA12831; Wed, 12 May 1999 15:35:41 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 12 May 1999 14:35:40 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21439; Wed, 12 May 1999 15:35:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:35:38 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199905121435.PAA21439@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Subject: Re: Mess after Misbid Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jean Pierre Rocafort > > Jan Peter Pals a écrit : > > > Last night at the club...... > > > > Matchpoints, dealer South, NS vul. > > > > J > > AQ6 > > AKT54 > > KQ76 > > Q92 AK74 > > HT9854 J2 > > Q87 62 > > 2 A8543 > > T8653 > > 73 > > J93 > > JT9 > > > > W N E S > > - - - p > > 2D(1) 2NT(2) p 3H(3) > > p 4H(4) 4S(5) X(6) > > p p p > > > > (1) Multi, alerted > > (2) This is where the trouble starts. It offers 17-19 HCP > > balanced over a multi (according to CC, so not alerted), > > but apparently North was thinking of a different kind of > > two-opening, and believed that his 2NT showed 17+ with > > any distribution. > > (3) transfer opposite the supposed 17-19 balanced hand, > > but in North's belief real, so duly not alerted and > > (4) raised to game. > > (5) So pard has a weak two in spades, let's sacrifice. > > (6) yummy..... > > > > 4Sx is down two for a near-bottom, and EW call the cops. > > How do you rule? > > > > (Results of the hand: peaceful partscores in hearts by EW > > and in diamonds by NS, one lucky devil made 3NT) > > > > Cheers, JP > > A simple text-book problem IMO: EW were damaged by the failure to alert > 3H bid, which they are entitled to know to be, by agreement, a transfer > bid. Score to be adjusted to the more favorable likely result, absent > the infraction... With the correct explanation, East might possibly > infer partner's heart suit and double. South might pass, having no more > information to transmit (especially with the UI that partner failed to > alert), and North might also pass, waiting still a little more time to > wake up. 1700 EW, -1700 NS. > (I assumed W's "H" was heart king?) > JP Rocafort I agree that we should adjust on the basis that East does not bid 4S but I am not sure it is at all probable that South will pass 4H or 4H(X). Do players "at the club" play 2NT-3H(xfer)-4H as natural? or spade support and some sort of heart feature? If 2NT-3H(xfer)-4H shows spade support, South will sign-off in 4S if East passes. If East doubles 4H, surely South will again sign-off as any other action will show slam interest. I do not agree South has "no more information to transmit", he had not shown a very weak hand which has no interest in slam. Now it gets very messy, North thinks South has hearts and a correction to spades will be read as a slam try, South thinks North has agreed spades and any heart bid will be read as slam try. East will double the final contract. Luckily this is matchpoints, so we don't really have to worry when North will pass a spade bid or South will pass a heart bid: any of 4HX-6, 6SX-5, 7NTX-6 will be a top. 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 May 13 00:45:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 00:45:19 +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 AAA26024 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 00:45:07 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h117.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id SAA21328; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:44:44 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <373A21BC.66D9@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:50:04 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Twins? References: <199905110314.UAA16252@corp.affiliation.COM> (message from Jeff Goldsmith on Mon, 10 May 1999 20:14:22 -0700 (PDT)) <373951C7.1154552E@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Herman wrote: > Lots of smileys added for those who don't realise I'm > joking. > > Or am I ? :-) I've already wrote that every joke had a bit of joke. Nor more than a bit...:) Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 13 07:28:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 07:28:50 +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 HAA27092 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 07:28:40 +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 RAA10286 for ; Wed, 12 May 1999 17:28:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA24606 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 17:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:28:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905122128.RAA24606@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Grouping alternatives X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > I agree with Mike that sometimes one must group certain bids > into one alternative, and then judge whether or not that > alternative is "suggested". As a matter of legal methodology, I don't believe this is correct. I believe L16 calls for comparing each LA in turn with the action taken. For example, if North says "Don't pass," and South then bids, and pass is a LA, just compare the bid chosen with pass. Yes, North's remark suggests bidding over passing, so there's no problem adjusting if there's damage. No need for grouping. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 13 09:13:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 09:13:50 +1000 Received: from mid.minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27375 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 09:13:43 +1000 Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by mid.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10hi9b-0001lv-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 May 1999 18:11:08 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19990512180730.009399f0@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 18:13:34 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Grouping alternatives In-Reply-To: <199905122128.RAA24606@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:28 PM 5/12/99 , Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> I agree with Mike that sometimes one must group certain bids >> into one alternative, and then judge whether or not that >> alternative is "suggested". > >As a matter of legal methodology, I don't believe this is correct. I >believe L16 calls for comparing each LA in turn with the action taken. >For example, if North says "Don't pass," and South then bids, and pass >is a LA, just compare the bid chosen with pass. Yes, North's remark >suggests bidding over passing, so there's no problem adjusting if >there's damage. No need for grouping. But a hesitation that says "Don't pass" doesn't necessarily suggest bidding 4H (for example) or any other specific bid. If UI suggests "bid 4S instead of 4H'" then we compare those two bids. But when it suggests "Don't pass" then haven't we just grouped all calls except pass? From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 13 11:08:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 11:08:11 +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 LAA27555 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 11:08:04 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h92.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id FAA14786; Thu, 13 May 1999 05:07:57 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <373AB3CC.4742@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 04:13:16 -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: What is a logical alternative? References: <000701be9bf9$11ac0240$cb307dc2@tsvecfob.iol.ie> <020001be9c00$b5ddd620$2f79accf@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="LA.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="LA.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I'd like to remind that years ago EK analyzed similar case and pointed (in his brilliant work "Appeal Committee" - sorry for bad wording: I had lost the original text and it is re-translation from my previous Russian translation) that: "If you bid and it appears the correct decision, whether result will be awarded? Certainly, the partner could think about bidding continuation by himself, so whether hesitation could determine the bid? And if you (instead that) doubles and it again appears correct decision, whether it should award the result now? You see, the partner could consider an opportunity of the Double, and whether his hesitation could not determine your double? The answer, certainly, is that there is no award out of dependence on actions you have undertaken. The hesitations of the partner in this case simply reflect sense of his forcing Pass: "I do not know what to make, your decision". They do not assume preference of one logical choice over other, so such case (and similar one only) are not a source of the illegal information." Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 13 20:17:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 20:17:51 +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 UAA28408 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 20:17:44 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-18.uunet.be [194.7.13.18]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA13350 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 12:17:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37398362.C8450112@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 15:34:26 +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: An illegal (?) ruling References: <8bd1fadb.2469f0d6@aol.com> <37394D9C.F8D51CE5@village.uunet.be> <7or$LFAIFWO3EwQR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > > >> Would one consider AKxx AKQxx Ax xx a psych? It is further removed from the > >> definition of flannery than the example hand. It is five HCP points removed, > >> while the example hand is two HCP removed. > > >That is not a psych either, that is misinformation pure and > >simple. > > If the pair concerned play 2D as 11-15, and they open the above hand > with 2D, then they have psyched. It is a gross distortion of the values > promised. > You misunderstood me : If a pair open the above hand 2Di, explained to opponents as Flannery, and explained to director as a psyche, then I choose not to believe them if I know that this player also plays some system on which that hand is opened 2Di systemically. A psych is a gross and DELIBERATE misstatement. I would not believe the case above, would you ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 13 22:08:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 22:08:01 +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 WAA28697 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 22:07:54 +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 IAA02488 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 08:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990513080847.006eb79c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 08:08:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Slow Pass In-Reply-To: <01be9c7a$f56a9a60$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:25 PM 5/12/99 +0100, Anne wrote: >"could demonstrably be suggested over another" = if the TD can demonstrate >to his own satisfaction that the bid made was suggested over another, or if >the player who made the bid can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the TD/AC >that his bid was not suggested over another? The former. Players involved in an adjudication must provide the TD/AC with factual testimony, but should never be under a positive obligation to act as advocates. Bridge justice should not depend on how well one's at-the-table opponents do as prosecuters. 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 May 13 23:49:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 May 1999 23:49:54 +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 XAA29036 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 23:49:47 +1000 Received: from pces09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.207] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10hvqp-0001uS-00; Thu, 13 May 1999 14:48:39 +0100 Message-ID: <000401be9d47$0f97d480$cf8993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 14:26:14 +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: 10 May 1999 03:10 Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair > L7D has nothing to do with pair numbers: it refers to conditions of >play, and is clear from the rest of L7 that it is not referring to who >the opponents are, but to the control of the board and the cards. > +++ Well, that's your opinion, my friend; as far as I am concerned one of the conditions of play is that the right pairs should be at the table ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 14 01:12:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 May 1999 01:12:48 +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 BAA01665 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 01:12:40 +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 LAA15917 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 11:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA16724; Thu, 13 May 1999 11:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:12:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905131512.LAA16724@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> >>#23 S J73 S W N E >>both H 63 2D(1) P 2S 3C >>dlr: S D KQJ764 P P 3S P >> C 73 P P >> S A86 S QT >> H AJ7 H KQ5 (1) alerted as flannery >> D T9532 D A8 -1, +100 EW >> C 85 C AT9642 >> S K9542 Using the ACBL GCC, it is illegal >> H T9842 to psyche an artificial opening call. >> D ----- At the end of the auction, the opponents >> C KQJ called me to the table. At first glance, >> I thought S had merely made a mistake, >>but he admitted that he had been fooling around with his Flannery call. >>Since his hand bore little relationship with flannery, I decided to adjust, >>but...how? >>I could have simply assigned A+, A-, and walked away, but, ever mindfull >>of how unsatisfactory that ruling could be, i (please note the small >>I) looked at the hand and decided that the most reasonable result would be >>3C EW making, +110. All the parties were satisfied...except for me. >>The players are playing normal systems, and are somewhat above average. >>Should I have simply assigned A+/A-, or assigned this (or a) result? >>As it happened, this was the first round, and at the end of the night >>+110 was average-ish over 8 results. >> Tony (aka ac342) >> > Much seems to have been made as to whether or not 2D was indeed a psyche. > My position: I do not think there should be a prohibition against >psyching artificial bids, strong or otherwise. The ACBL does, and >so does the club I work for. For good or ill, therefore, I do not >take a "lenient" approach when this occurs. > As for this particular case: when the opponents complain there was >a psyche; the "psycher"'s partner says this hand type was not part of >their agreement (and this was the first time they had ever met, let >alone played together); and the player himself agreed that he had set >out to be deceptive (!), then who am I to tell the players, " Ya, but, IMNSHO >(in my not so humble opinion) this is not a psyche, so, result stands.". > However, whether or not this is a psyche is of little interest to me, >though perhaps worthy of a seperate thread. I am interested in the best >way to get a result when something like this occurs, whether after an illegal >psyche, a CPU, an illegal convention, ect.. Should a director simply >(and, oh so easily) assign A+/A-, or should the director strive to >assign an actual result, and, if so, how? >Thank you. > Tony (aka ac342) > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 14 01:37:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA01731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 May 1999 01:37:05 +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 BAA01726 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 01:36:56 +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 LAA24943 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 11:36:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA25041 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 May 1999 11:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:37:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905131537.LAA25041@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Grouping alternatives X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John S. Nichols" > But a hesitation that says "Don't pass" doesn't necessarily suggest bidding > 4H (for example) or any other specific bid. Such a hesitation suggests 4H over pass. If pass is a LA, the 4H bid is illegal. So is any other bid or double or redouble. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 14 03:53:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 May 1999 03:53:06 +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 DAA02236 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 03:52:30 +1000 Received: from p62s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.99] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10hzd9-0007Fr-00; Thu, 13 May 1999 18:50:47 +0100 Message-ID: <015c01be9d68$e22e5740$26a393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Concession Withdrawn L71C Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 18:38:47 +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: 10 May 1999 20:07 Subject: Re: Concession Withdrawn L71C > I cannot think of anything to say! > >-- >David Stevenson ++++ But he said it anyway.........++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 14 08:02:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 May 1999 08:02:51 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA02723 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 08:02:45 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA29655 for ; Thu, 13 May 1999 17:02:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.42) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029595; Thu May 13 17:01:49 1999 Received: by har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE9D6A.7F3F4660@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 13 May 1999 18:00:33 -0400 Message-ID: <01BE9D6A.7F3F4660@har-pa1-10.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: An illegal (?) ruling Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:44:56 -0400 Encoding: 88 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk IF there is an irregularity 12c2 would seem to apply. After all a result WAS obtained! NOS gets most favourable likely result absent any irregularity; OS gets most unfavourable at all probable. But what is the irregularity? This does NOT appear to be a psych(e) to me. It DOES promise both majors and with the good playing strength, the void and the extra spade is quite comparable to Flannery. This is shading the bid more than I would normally choose to do, but does not seem to be illegal, any more so than (rarely) treating a bad 18 as as 15-17 1N opener having 2236 shape for example. Unless there is some evidence of a CPU I question that there was any irregularity. Also is there damage? In an unimpeded auction would not east west tend to stumble to a bad 3N? I don't see that 3C= is at all the given that others on this thread have suggested. I am less certain on this point than some of you experts...feel free to educate me. :-)) What is overwhelmingly clear is that this is NOT a 12c1 situation and an artificial adjusted score is just plain wrong and in contravention of the laws. -- Craig Senior A. L. Edwards wrote: Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling > >> >>#23 S J73 S W N E >>both H 63 2D(1) P 2S 3C >>dlr: S D KQJ764 P P 3S P >> C 73 P P >> S A86 S QT >> H AJ7 H KQ5 (1) alerted as flannery >> D T9532 D A8 -1, +100 EW >> C 85 C AT9642 >> S K9542 Using the ACBL GCC, it is illegal >> H T9842 to psyche an artificial opening call. >> D ----- At the end of the auction, the opponents >> C KQJ called me to the table. At first glance, >> I thought S had merely made a mistake, >>but he admitted that he had been fooling around with his Flannery call. >>Since his hand bore little relationship with flannery, I decided to adjust, >>but...how? >>I could have simply assigned A+, A-, and walked away, but, ever mindfull >>of how unsatisfactory that ruling could be, i (please note the small >>I) looked at the hand and decided that the most reasonable result would be >>3C EW making, +110. All the parties were satisfied...except for me. >>The players are playing normal systems, and are somewhat above average. >>Should I have simply assigned A+/A-, or assigned this (or a) result? >>As it happened, this was the first round, and at the end of the night >>+110 was average-ish over 8 results. >> Tony (aka ac342) >> > Much seems to have been made as to whether or not 2D was indeed a psyche. > My position: I do not think there should be a prohibition against >psyching artificial bids, strong or otherwise. The ACBL does, and >so does the club I work for. For good or ill, therefore, I do not >take a "lenient" approach when this occurs. > As for this particular case: when the opponents complain there was >a psyche; the "psycher"'s partner says this hand type was not part of >their agreement (and this was the first time they had ever met, let >alone played together); and the player himself agreed that he had set >out to be deceptive (!), then who am I to tell the players, " Ya, but, IMNSHO >(in my not so humble opinion) this is not a psyche, so, result stands.". > However, whether or not this is a psyche is of little interest to me, >though perhaps worthy of a seperate thread. I am interested in the best >way to get a result when something like this occurs, whether after an illegal >psyche, a CPU, an illegal convention, ect.. Should a director simply >(and, oh so easily) assign A+/A-, or should the director strive to >assign an actual result, and, if so, how? >Thank you. > Tony (aka ac342) > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 14 10:28:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 May 1999 10:28:08 +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 KAA02988 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 10:28:00 +1000 Received: from modem48.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.48] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10i5pQ-0003Or-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 May 1999 01:27:53 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 01:11:23 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Rejoice if you know the end of those things which you yourself devise." - Leonardo da Vinci uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu > From: Craig Senior > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: An illegal (?) ruling > Date: 13 May 1999 22:44 > > What is overwhelmingly clear is that this is NOT a 12c1 situation and an > artificial adjusted score is just plain wrong and in contravention of the > laws. > +++++ Now I might just question that last statement where there has been a psychic bid in contravention of regulation. The use of an illegal bid suggests to me that there has been no acceptable auction that could give a result. The illegal bid and the subsequent auction are to be cancelled. I would look to Law 12A2. It is a bad principle to attempt to guess for the players a whole auction that has had no development. The possibilities are nigh infinite - after all the player in question could quite legitimately have passed! .............~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 14 10:28:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 May 1999 10:28:08 +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 KAA02989 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 10:28:00 +1000 Received: from modem48.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.48] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10i5pT-0003Or-00; Fri, 14 May 1999 01:27:55 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Slow Pass Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 01:17:43 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Rejoice if you know the end of those things which you yourself devise." - Leonardo da Vinci iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiii ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Slow Pass > Date: 13 May 1999 13:08 > > At 02:25 PM 5/12/99 +0100, Anne wrote: > > >"could demonstrably be suggested over another" = if the TD can demonstrate > >to his own satisfaction that the bid made was suggested over another, +++ I agree with Eric's response, but perhaps the statement should be broadened to say 'if the TD or anyone can demonstrate satisfactorily ... etc.' ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 14 21:04:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 May 1999 21:04:45 +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 VAA04131 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 21:04:38 +1000 Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (actually host elios.maths.bris.ac.uk) by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 May 1999 12:04:25 +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 MAA19808 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 12:03:52 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Changing systems/partners Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:01:00 +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 sure I've seen this discussed here before, but I wasn't paying attention at the time, so apologies for being boring. I believe that the ACBL have rules about changing systems during events (you can only normally do so between "sessions"?). Does the EBU have a similar rule? If so, where? I've looked through the Orange Book without finding anything. The Laws (L4) do prohibit changing partnerships during a session (usually). What is normally meant by a "session" (I know this is up to the sponsoring organization, but what is standard in pairs, multiple teams, Swiss teams, Swiss pairs, head-to-head teams matches, ...?) Jeremy. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 15 03:59:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 May 1999 03:59:01 +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 DAA07512 for ; Sat, 15 May 1999 03:58:52 +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 NAA09150 for ; Fri, 14 May 1999 13:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905141758.NAA06316@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Jeremy Rickard on Fri, 14 May 1999 12:01:00 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)) Subject: Re: Changing systems/partners Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard writes: > The Laws (L4) do prohibit changing partnerships during a > session (usually). What is normally meant by a "session" (I > know this is up to the sponsoring organization, but what is > standard in pairs, multiple teams, Swiss teams, Swiss pairs, > head-to-head teams matches, ...?) The ACBL Swiss Teams Conditions of Contest define a "session" as a single match This is necessary for consistency with the rules, since a Swiss team does change partnerships after a match. This also requires a score adjustment (for UI/MI/etc.) to be made before the next match starts. However, score corrections which are not the players' responsibility may be made when the incorrect score is posted. The Conditions of Contest allow a correction to be denied if the offender could have known that pairings had been based on an incorrect score. (In many tournaments, only pairings, not scores, are posted in the intermediate rounds, and teams fill out their own result slips. In such an event, it would be possible for a scorer to incorrectly credit your team with 5 rather than 15, and for your ream not to discover this until the seventh round, when you were listed with 89 rather than 99 on the leader board. Since you could not have known about the error, you can still get an adjustment.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 15 06:07:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 May 1999 06:07:06 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07841 for ; Sat, 15 May 1999 06:06:55 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA22013; Fri, 14 May 1999 15:06:12 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.42) by dfw-ix12.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021910; Fri May 14 15:05:24 1999 Received: by har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BE9E23.68613E80@har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 14 May 1999 16:04:12 -0400 Message-ID: <01BE9E23.68613E80@har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Grattan'" Subject: RE: An illegal (?) ruling Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 14:10:54 -0400 Encoding: 55 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As you know I do not view this as a psychic auction. But the point you raise is an interesting one and may deserve clarification for lesser lights such as this writer. :-) I have had it hammered into me on this list that an ArtAdj score is illegal except when a result cannot be obtained through play. It has been stated in past that when a result has indeed been obtained through play an ArtAdj score would thus be wrong. I believe that you are saying that when a problem in the auction so muddies the waters that it would be difficult to determine what might have happened absent the offense then 12A2 may apply after all. I think it may be important to stress that we should not fall back on this logic every time an ArtAss score would take a little time and effort by the TD (as seems to be the flaw in some ACBL jurisdictions). I would hope that if applied at all this logic would be used in only the rarest and most extreme cases. --- Craig Senior From: Grattan[SMTP:hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 8:11 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling Grattan ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Rejoice if you know the end of those things which you yourself devise." - Leonardo da Vinci uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu > From: Craig Senior > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: RE: An illegal (?) ruling > Date: 13 May 1999 22:44 > > What is overwhelmingly clear is that this is NOT a 12c1 situation and an > artificial adjusted score is just plain wrong and in contravention of the > laws. > +++++ Now I might just question that last statement where there has been a psychic bid in contravention of regulation. The use of an illegal bid suggests to me that there has been no acceptable auction that could give a result. The illegal bid and the subsequent auction are to be cancelled. I would look to Law 12A2. It is a bad principle to attempt to guess for the players a whole auction that has had no development. The possibilities are nigh infinite - after all the player in question could quite legitimately have passed! .............~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 16 22:03:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 May 1999 22:03:44 +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 WAA13810 for ; Sun, 16 May 1999 22:03:37 +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 10izdi-000KKy-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 May 1999 12:03:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 23:53:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Changing systems/partners In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Jeremy Rickard writes > >I'm sure I've seen this discussed here before, but I >wasn't paying attention at the time, so apologies for >being boring. > >I believe that the ACBL have rules about changing systems >during events (you can only normally do so between "sessions"?). >Does the EBU have a similar rule? If so, where? I've looked >through the Orange Book without finding anything. It's usually in the conditions of contest I think > >The Laws (L4) do prohibit changing partnerships during a >session (usually). What is normally meant by a "session" (I >know this is up to the sponsoring organization, but what is >standard in pairs, multiple teams, Swiss teams, Swiss pairs, >head-to-head teams matches, ...?) > > Jeremy. > >--------------------------------------------- >Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk >Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 >http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr >--------------------------------------------- > -- 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 May 16 22:35:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 May 1999 22:35:22 +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 WAA13864 for ; Sun, 16 May 1999 22:35:17 +1000 Received: from default ([12.78.218.120]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990516123442.LZL25377@default> for ; Sun, 16 May 1999 12:34:42 +0000 Message-ID: <002001be9fb2$c8c4fa60$78da4e0c@default> From: "JOAN GERARD" To: Subject: e-mail list Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 08:42:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01BE9F78.18789480" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BE9F78.18789480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It appears that I have been dropped from the e-mail list of receipients. = I have not received any messages for two days and that's not like this group. If = so, I would like to be added to the list again. Thanks. joanandron@worldnet.att.net ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BE9F78.18789480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It appears that I have been dropped = from the=20 e-mail list of receipients. I have not
received any messages for two days = and that's=20 not like this group. If so, I would
like to be added to the list again.=20 Thanks.
          &nbs= p;           =20 joanandron@worldnet.att.net
 
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BE9F78.18789480-- From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 16 22:57:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 May 1999 22:57:02 +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 WAA13890 for ; Sun, 16 May 1999 22:56:55 +1000 Received: from default ([12.78.218.120]) by mtiwmhc04.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990516125620.OTD25377@default> for ; Sun, 16 May 1999 12:56:20 +0000 Message-ID: <004b01be9fb5$cebc5aa0$78da4e0c@default> From: "JOAN GERARD" To: Subject: Fw: e-mail list Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 09:04:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0048_01BE9F7B.1CF589C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01BE9F7B.1CF589C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: JOAN GERARD To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sunday, May 16, 1999 8:42 AM Subject: e-mail list It appears that I have been dropped from the e-mail list of receipients. = I have not received any messages for two days and that's not like this group. If = so, I would like to be added to the list again. Thanks. joanandron@worldnet.att.net =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0048_01BE9F7B.1CF589C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 JOAN GERARD <joanandron@worldnet.att.net>
To:=20 bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au=20 <bridge-laws@octavia.anu.ed= u.au>
Date:=20 Sunday, May 16, 1999 8:42 AM
Subject: e-mail=20 list

It appears that I have been dropped = from the=20 e-mail list of receipients. I have not
received any messages for two days = and that's=20 not like this group. If so, I would
like to be added to the list again.=20 Thanks.
          &nbs= p;           =20 joanandron@worldnet.att.net
 
------=_NextPart_000_0048_01BE9F7B.1CF589C0-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 09:10:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:10:02 +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 JAA17391 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:09:55 +1000 Received: from modem90.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.218] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10jA2T-0007rK-00; Mon, 17 May 1999 00:09:45 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Rickard, Jeremy" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Changing systems/partners Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 22:24:21 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllll > From: Jeremy Rickard > To: BLML > Subject: Changing systems/partners > Date: 14 May 1999 12:01 > I believe that the ACBL have rules about changing systems > during events (you can only normally do so between "sessions"?). > Does the EBU have a similar rule? If so, where? I've looked > through the Orange Book without finding anything. > +++ 1. Concerning systems, I have looked through the Orange Book and through the 'white book' (supplementary EBU guidance to TDs). There are inferences that the change of systems is not expected, and there is permission in high level games to declare two systems switching according to vulnerability OR position in relation to dealer. I have observed no other relevant statement. Since there is some suggestion that players' experiments are afoot adopting such methods it may be that the EBU should consider the subject. I have also looked through the BBL Conditions of Contest for its Premier League, conducted on WBF Category 1 lines as a tool for selection of British international teams. This is an extract: " The two members of a partnership are restricted to a single system in any one match and both must play the same system and the same conventions in bidding and play. Encrypted leads, signals and discards are not permitted. A change of basic system, or material changes to a system during an event, needs the approval of the Tournament Director before it can be used. Permission will usually be given provided that neither the original submission nor the change is made to gain unreasonable advantage, and provided that the change is to a system with a licence at level 2 or 3 as issued by the English Bridge Union. " 2. I have commented in WBF circles on a question put concerning regulation of system agreements which change a partnerships basic signalling methods in the middle of a hand (at a point when knowledge is gained of some circumstance of the hand). Anyone taking the thought up needs to remember to cater for some standard things like Smith Peters. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 09:09:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:09:59 +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 JAA17386 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:09:53 +1000 Received: from modem90.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.218] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10jA2U-0007rK-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 May 1999 00:09:47 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Thoughts about thoughts. Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:04:48 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllll +++ In the absence of David here is a stop gap example of a ruling from the eight teams final of a teams championship. (Crockfords Cup Final, May 1999) K 8 4 K Q 5 J 9 2 K 7 5 2 10 2 J 9 6 7 6 3 J 9 8 4 A Q 6 4 K 5 3 A Q 10 3 9 8 4 A Q 7 5 3 A 10 2 10 8 7 J 6 Love all. Dealer West. Auction: West 1NT all pass. When dummy was faced North called the TD and asked to reserve his rights since East had taken unduly long to consider a Pass when he "had nothing to think about". It was agreed that East had considered for longer than normal before passing. At the end of the play South called the Director and asserted that without East's hesitation he, South, "had an automatic Two Spades bid". East informed the Director that he had been thinking whether to use Stayman and pass the response. The director consulted by phone with another senior and experienced Director who suggested that the score stand since South should know that a pause for thought opposite a weak no-trump opener could be occasioned either by certain weak holdings or by some hands that possessed high cards. There was some discussion between the Directors as to what powers might exist to allow award of a penalty, but any question whether to adjust for one side only was not examined. The Director then thought the matter over some more on his own and decided to award an adjusted score of Two Spades making 9 tricks, and quoting Law 73D1. He commented that in his opinion this was unlikely to have been the first time East had possessed a balanced 5-count opposite a Weak No Trump opener. The ruling was not appealed so my view as referee (working with telephone opinion from another panel referee) was never called upon. There you go. Have a nice day. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 09:10:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:10:04 +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 JAA17397 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:09:58 +1000 Received: from modem90.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.218] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10jA2a-0007rK-00; Mon, 17 May 1999 00:09:53 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Craig Senior" , Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 00:06:03 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllll > From: Craig Senior > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; 'Grattan' > Subject: RE: An illegal (?) ruling > Date: 14 May 1999 19:10 > > I think it may be important to stress that we should not fall back on > this logic every time an ArtAss score would take a little time and effort > by the TD (as seems to be the flaw in some ACBL jurisdictions). I would > hope that if applied at all this logic would be used in only the rarest and > most extreme cases. > ++++ I think this says it fairly enough. If the auction has developed in a way that we can build it to an assessed result it would be extremely rare that an ArtAss score would be justified, if ever. I do think some strains of directors, not all in one Zone, have taken the easy way out all too much. We ask TDs to have opinions and they should exercise "their little grey cells" as Monsieur Poirot would say. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 10:44:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 10:44:38 +1000 Received: from pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA17613 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 10:44:32 +1000 Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by pimaia2y-ext.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA24616 for ; Sun, 16 May 1999 20:44:25 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAA19168 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 16 May 1999 20:39:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199905170039.UAA19168@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 20:39:42, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Bobby Goldman deceased MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Sunday 5/16/99 Information appeared on Usenet today that Bobby Goldman has passed away from a heart attack. I took the opportunity to confirm the information before passing it onto the list. It says that he went into unconsciousness and never awoke. I am sure ACBL Headquarters will hear more tomorrow. This is a shocker to all of us. -Chyah Burghard From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 11:10:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 11:10:50 +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 LAA17745 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 11:10:46 +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 LAA16920; Mon, 17 May 1999 11:10:41 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990517111120.00a579c0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 11:11:21 +1000 To: "JOAN GERARD" From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Fw: e-mail list Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>>> ArialIt appears that I have been dropped from the e-mail list of receipients. I have not received any messages for two days and that's not like this group. If so, I would like to be added to the list again. Thanks. size=2> joanandron@worldnet.att.net You're still subscr*bed. You can always check if you are still on the list by sending an email to majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with the command 'who bridge-laws' (without the quotes) in the body of the message, to see who is on that list - which only works if you are a member of the list :-). You can also (in the same message if you like) send the command 'which' which will tell you 'which' lists your email address is subscribed to on the server. I don't unsubscr*be people lightly, usually only if their email address has become bad and stayed bad for a while. Given I get around 50-100 bounces a day from BLML this is a fairly generous attitude :-). Some companies' servers seem to regularly fall over on weekends... And it does happen that BLML is quiet for a day or two. I never understand why, except around the major holidays. Something to do with chaos, I suspect :-) Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 11:22:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 11:22:19 +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 LAA17773 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 11:22:09 +1000 Received: from p71s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.114] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10jC6V-0005Pm-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 May 1999 02:22:04 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Changing systems/partners Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 02:25:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01bea004$2664b4c0$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: Rickard, Jeremy Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 4:31 PM Subject: Re: Changing systems/partners -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Rickard To: BLML Date: Friday, May 14, 1999 12:39 PM Subject: Changing systems/partners >I'm sure I've seen this discussed here before, but I >wasn't paying attention at the time, so apologies for >being boring. > >I believe that the ACBL have rules about changing systems >during events (you can only normally do so between "sessions"?). >Does the EBU have a similar rule? If so, where? I've looked >through the Orange Book without finding anything. This is interesting. The Orange book says that you can play different systems at different positions or vulnerabilities only in level 4 competitions. You must have two CCs each, and they must be marked as to when they apply. OB 9.1.8. This rule does not address the use of different systems to cope with the system presented by ones opponents. I can envisage a problem similar to the chicken and egg situation currently being mailed to. In a pairs event, just two boards per round, I arrive at a table and say "What system do you play?" Answer "Acol" "OK then we play Precision" "Oh, if you are playing Precision, we will play it too" "No, if you're playing >Precision, we play Standard American" One for the TD I think.:-)) >The Laws (L4) do prohibit changing partnerships during a >session (usually). What is normally meant by a "session" (I >know this is up to the sponsoring organization, but what is >standard in pairs, multiple teams, Swiss teams, Swiss pairs, >head-to-head teams matches, ...?) This is easier. A session is defined in the White Book 5.2;79.12; and 88.3. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 16:17:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA18163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:17:11 +1000 Received: from oznet11.ozemail.com.au (oznet11.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.114]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA18158 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:17:07 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p57.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.137]) by oznet11.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA08303 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:17:03 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990517105841.007544f0@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:58:41 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Unusual MI damage? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This unusual situation arose yesterday. E/EW A974 1094 AQ A852 8 QJ1063 K87632 AJ5 K103 AJ5 K97 J6 K52 Q 98652 Q1043 E S W N P P 2H 6-10) 2S Dbl All pass. Before the opening lead, North explained that his 2S call should have been alerted. His bid was a general takeout double, promising four spades. Immediately ( before his opening lead) East called the TD, claiming he would have taken different action had the alert been made at the appropriate time. As partner has since passed, the TD could not allow him to change his call, and play proceeded. 2SX made through less than perfect defence. Recalling the TD, East claimed that, had the alert been made at the correct time, he would have bid 3H rather than double 2S. His reasons: if North's bid is a general takeout double, East's hand suggests that the opponents very likely have a better fit elsewhere, which they may well find if he doubles. He would have bid 3H rather than double had the alert been made at the correct time. So we have the unusual situation where East would happily have doubled had the 2S call shown 5+ cards, but not if it can show only 4 cards! He was correctly concerned that NS might find a better fit, which they have but didn't find! Of course, this could be an astute East laying the groundwork for an adjusted score if the 2SX produced a poor result, but I doubt that this was the case. The contract made from poor defence, but not wild or irrational. Opinions please. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 16:55:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA18196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:55:50 +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 QAA18191 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:55:43 +1000 Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 17 May 1999 08:55:13 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990517085551.007c7690@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 08:55:51 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Thoughts about thoughts. In-Reply-To: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:04 16.05.99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >Grattan >----------------------------------------------------------------- > " Everything should be made as simple as > possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] =20 >lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lll >lllllllllllllllllllllll =20 > >+++ In the absence of David here is a stop gap example >of a ruling from the eight teams final of a teams=20 >championship. (Crockfords Cup Final, May 1999) The absence of David is perhaps the reason for the quietness of this list... ;-) > > K 8 4 > K Q 5 > J 9 2 > K 7 5 2 >10 2 J 9 6 >7 6 3 J 9 8 4 >A Q 6 4 K 5 3 >A Q 10 3 9 8 4 > A Q 7 5 3 > A 10 2 > 10 8 7=20 > J 6 > >Love all. Dealer West. >Auction: > West > 1NT all pass. > >When dummy was faced North called the TD and asked to reserve >his rights since East had taken unduly long to consider a Pass when >he "had nothing to think about". It was agreed that East had >considered for longer than normal before passing. > >At the end of the play South called the Director and asserted that >without East's hesitation he, South, "had an automatic Two Spades >bid". East informed the Director that he had been thinking=20 >whether to use Stayman and pass the response. > >The director consulted by phone with another senior and=20 >experienced Director who suggested that the score stand since >South should know that a pause for thought opposite a weak >no-trump opener could be occasioned either by certain weak=20 >holdings or by some hands that possessed high cards. There was >some discussion between the Directors as to what powers might >exist to allow award of a penalty, but any question whether to >adjust for one side only was not examined.=20 > >The Director then thought the matter over some more on his own=20 >and decided to award an adjusted score of Two Spades making=20 >9 tricks, and quoting Law 73D1. He commented that in his=20 >opinion this was unlikely to have been the first time East had=20 >possessed a balanced 5-count opposite a Weak No Trump opener.=20 >The ruling was not appealed so my view as referee (working with=20 >telephone opinion from another panel referee) was never called=20 >upon. > > Well. >I think this is to be solved via L73F2. E must have a demonstrable Bridge-Reason for thinking. I think he has.=20 No score-adjustment... I think there are players which might bid on with the E-hand (a fairly substantial number) and many players which wouldn=B4t. So there seems to be = a case for thinking anyway.=20 Remark: This substantial number of players should be around 5% or so to be valuable...=20 Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 17:00:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA18211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 17:00:15 +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 RAA18206 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 17:00:09 +1000 Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 17 May 1999 08:59:46 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:00:25 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Where is the claim? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (expert players) in which the following case took place: declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: "If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." Is this a claim? The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether the D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). What now? From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 18:34:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:34:46 +1000 Received: from mail1.rb.op.dlr.de (mail1.rb.op.dlr.de [129.247.182.247]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA18330 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:34:31 +1000 Received: from Systems.rb.op.dlr.de ([129.247.182.102]) by mail1.rb.op.dlr.de (Netscape Messaging Server 3.0) with SMTP id AAA10405 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 10:27:38 -0100 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jaap Herman" Organization: German Space Operations Centre To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:33:48 +0200 Subject: Re: Unusual MI damage? Reply-to: Jaap.Herman@dlr.de Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19990517112738.AAA10405@Systems.rb.op.dlr.de> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I assume Easts diamonds are J74 and not AJ5. E/EW A974 1094 AQ A852 8 QJ1063 K87632 AJ5 K103 J74 K97 J6 K52 Q 98652 Q1043 My decision would be: score stands. East's arguments are foul; either N or S is surely very short in hearts. In other words, also wenn 2S would show at least 5 spades, NS are bound to have another fit in one of the minors. With friendly greetings, Jaap Herman From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 18:35:01 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:35:01 +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 SAA18336 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:34:53 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA03985 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 08:34:13 GMT Message-ID: <373FD4A0.C2B9F8F0@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:34:41 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Where is the claim? References: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id IAA03985 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley a =E9crit : > Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (ex= pert > players) in which the following case took place: > > declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: > "If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." > > Is this a claim? This is not a claim: play will cease if D break 3-2, but play will procee= d if not; if it was a real claim, play should cease anyway. However I would ad= vocate some leeway to accept this action intended to accelerate game: declarer promises to adopt a line of play (more precisely, one of several lines) w= hich warrants his contract in all cases with diamonds breaking, but needs some= more time to analyse which of these lines of play to choose in order to deal w= ith bad breaks. A few years ago, there was one such deal reported by E. Kaplan (maybe he played it himself, I don't remember): declarer, needing to make all trick= s with AQ109 in front of K876 told his opponents he could claim if the suit brok= e 3-2. In the absence of answer, he was quite sure it didn't break. The problem = was then: declarer plays A then 9 and opponent follows suit; At this point de= clarer knows he should finesse but he is constrained by his promise not to choos= e a line of play which could fail in any case of 3-2 break. A promise is not = a claim, but it is a promise. Strictly speaking, I think this action is not a claim (a conditional cla= im is not a claim) and is not allowed by the laws. Your declarer would have bee= n in a bad position if an ill-intentionned (or not?) LHO, with 4 diamonds, had a= lso spread his hand saying: OK you claimed, let's all look at 4 hands and see whether we need the TD to know how many tricks should be given to each si= de. > > > The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether = the > D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). > > What now? No problem if his line of play would have also been successful in all pos= sible cases of 3-2 diamond breaks. Further investigation needed if not, with st= rong suspicion against declarer. 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 May 17 18:55:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:55:20 +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 SAA18404 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:55:12 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA04972 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 08:54:36 GMT Message-ID: <373FD967.6DFD5B26@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:55:04 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: BLML Subject: Re: Changing systems/partners References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id IAA04972 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan a =E9crit : > Grattan > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > " Everything should be made as simple as > possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] > lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll= lllllll > lllllllllllllllllllllll > > > > From: Jeremy Rickard > > To: BLML > > Subject: Changing systems/partners > > Date: 14 May 1999 12:01 > > I believe that the ACBL have rules about changing systems > > during events (you can only normally do so between "sessions"?). > > Does the EBU have a similar rule? If so, where? I've looked > > through the Orange Book without finding anything. > > > +++ 1. Concerning systems, I have looked through the Orange Book > and through the 'white book' (supplementary EBU guidance to TDs). > There are inferences that the change of systems is not expected, > and there is permission in high level games to declare two systems > switching according to vulnerability OR position in relation to dealer. Is this 2 systems? IMO it's only one system, a complex system but a syste= m which can be described in a determinist way. Two different systems, IMO, are sy= stems which require different bids in the same "conditions". Conditions includi= ng player's hand, previous bids, vulnerability, position, form of scoring... > > I have observed no other relevant statement. Since there is some > suggestion that players' experiments are afoot adopting such methods > it may be that the EBU should consider the subject. > I have also looked through the BBL Conditions of Contest for > its Premier League, conducted on WBF Category 1 lines as a tool > for selection of British international teams. This is an extract: > " The two members of a partnership are restricted to a single > system in any one match and both must play the same system > and the same conventions in bidding and play. > Encrypted leads, signals and discards are not permitted. Don't feel obliged to answer this friendly provocation, but: does this regulation actually disallow this form of signals: "To give cou= nt when your cards tell you it could be helpful for partner and to play random sp= ot cards otherwise"? JP Rocafort > > A change of basic system, or material changes to a system > during an event, needs the approval of the Tournament Director > before it can be used. Permission will usually be given provided that > neither the original submission nor the change is made to gain > unreasonable advantage, and provided that the change is to a system > with a licence at level 2 or 3 as issued by the English Bridge Union. " > 2. I have commented in WBF circles on a question put > concerning regulation of system agreements which change a > partnerships basic signalling methods in the middle of a hand (at > a point when knowledge is gained of some circumstance of the hand). > Anyone taking the thought up needs to remember to cater for some > standard things like Smith Peters. ~ Grattan ~ +++ -- ___________________________________________________ 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 May 17 21:28:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 21:28:06 +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 VAA18727 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 21:27:57 +1000 Received: from ip73.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.73]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990517112747.KVTM3593.fep2@ip73.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 13:27:47 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unusual MI damage? Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 11:27:48 GMT Message-ID: <374bfa5a.7245137@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990517105841.007544f0@ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990517105841.007544f0@ozemail.com.au> 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 Mon, 17 May 1999 10:58:41 +1000 skrev Reg Busch: >This unusual situation arose yesterday. There are two diamond aces and two diamond 5's, and neither D7 or D4. >So we have the unusual situation where East would happily have doubled had >the 2S call shown 5+ cards, but not if it can show only 4 cards! He was >correctly concerned that NS might find a better fit, which they have but >didn't find! Of course, this could be an astute East laying the groundwork >for an adjusted score if the 2SX produced a poor result, but I doubt that >this was the case. The contract made from poor defence, but not wild or >irrational. >Opinions please. There must be MI (there is) There must be damage (there is (probably - hands are wrong)) The damage must be the result of the MI (it's not) No adjustment. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 21:28:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 21:28:06 +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 VAA18728 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 21:27:59 +1000 Received: from ip73.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.73]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990517112753.KVTQ3593.fep2@ip73.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 13:27:53 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 11:27:54 GMT Message-ID: <3752fd17.7945384@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> 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 Mon, 17 May 1999 09:00:25 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: >declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: Law 68A states that uttering a statement about future tricks or showing your cards is a claim. Declarer did both. 68D says that play then ceases. >"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." >Is this a claim? Yes. >What now? TD wasn't called as (s)he should have been. What can you do? Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 22:00:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:00:14 +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 VAA18980 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 21:59:59 +1000 Received: from ip43.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.43]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990517115953.KZJM3593.fep2@ip43.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 13:59:53 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 11:59:54 GMT Message-ID: <3757033a.9516644@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <373FD4A0.C2B9F8F0@meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <373FD4A0.C2B9F8F0@meteo.fr> 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 Mon, 17 May 1999 10:34:41 +0200 skrev Jean Pierre Rocafort: >AQ109 in front of K876 told his opponents he could claim if the suit broke 3-2. >In the absence of answer, he was quite sure it didn't break. Thanks for the idea! Tonight I will tell my opponents that I can claim if the suit brakes 3-2. If they do not answer I continue: "I can claim if the suit breaks 4-1" a.s.o. That way I can be sure of the distribution before I start playing. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 22:14:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:14:27 +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 WAA19217 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:14:20 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA10619 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 08:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990517081546.00693660@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 08:15:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.d e> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:00 AM 5/17/99 +0200, Richard wrote: >Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (expert >players) in which the following case took place: > >declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: >"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." > >Is this a claim? Yes. L68A: "A contestant... claims... when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." >The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether the >D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). > >What now? The claim is adjudicated normally; the play after the claim is ignored. 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 May 17 22:24:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:24:47 +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 WAA19348 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:24:37 +1000 Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 17 May 1999 14:14:01 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990517141440.007afa80@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:14:40 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Where is the claim? MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just a forward >X-POP3-Rcpt: Richard.Bley@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de >X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam= =20 > 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: Richard Bley >Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 13:43:42 +0200 >Subject: Re: Where is the claim? >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) > >> At 11:30 17.05.99 +0200, you wrote: >> >You wrote: >> > >> >> Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (expert >> >> players) in which the following case took place: >> >>=20 >> >> declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: >> >> "If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." >> >>=20 >> >> Is this a claim? >> > >> >Yes. L68A. When a player shows his cards in this manner it's a=20 >> >claim. >> What will you say, if the player states that he just showed his cards to >> only one player because he didnt want to claim? >> What=B4s with the L68A bracket words: >> "(unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)" > >OK, but why would he show his cards the way he did, if he did not=20 >intend to claim? I'm still convinced that this way of showing your=20 >cards constitutes a claim in the sense of L68A.=20 >I'm sure you will get some diffrerent answers, especially from our=20 >American friends, who loooove to have long arguments about this=20 >kind of legalistic nitpicking, but at the table I prefer the simple,=20 >pragmatic approach. > >> > >> >> The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether the >> >> D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). >> >>=20 >> >> What now? >> >>=20 >> >Was the claim contested? >> >Was the TD summoned? >> >If so, then L 68D applies. After any claim or concession, play=20 >> >ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be=20 >> >voided by the Director.=20 >> If there is a claim ther is no real problem. But what is when the player >> didnt make a claim. E. g. if you like he said 8and showing his cards to >> only one player): >> "I=B4m not to claim, but... >>=20 >> Another question: How can the RHO contest the claim, if he is not allowed >> to see the cards from declarer? > >That's why LHO should have summoned the TD directly. > >> Thanks for your answers. Your way was exactly the way the TD had gone= (and >> the AC with 2:1 as well (the one was not me ;-)) >>=20 > >I suspected as much.... > >Cheers, JP > >(by the way, some interesting comment from the French JP...) > > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 22:36:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:36:45 +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 WAA19471 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:36:35 +1000 Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 17 May 1999 14:35:22 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990517143557.007ac8b0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:35:57 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <373FD4A0.C2B9F8F0@meteo.fr> References: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! At 10:34 17.05.99 +0200, Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > >Richard Bley a =E9crit : > >> Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams= (expert >> players) in which the following case took place: >> >> declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: >> "If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." >> >> Is this a claim? > >This is not a claim: play will cease if D break 3-2, but play will proceed= if >not; if it was a real claim, play should cease anyway. However I would advocate >some leeway to accept this action intended to accelerate game: declarer >promises to adopt a line of play (more precisely, one of several lines)= which >warrants his contract in all cases with diamonds breaking, but needs some more >time to analyse which of these lines of play to choose in order to deal= with >bad breaks. > > A few years ago, there was one such deal reported by E. Kaplan (maybe he >played it himself, I don't remember): declarer, needing to make all tricks with >AQ109 in front of K876 told his opponents he could claim if the suit broke 3-2. >In the absence of answer, he was quite sure it didn't break. The problem= was >then: declarer plays A then 9 and opponent follows suit; At this point declarer >knows he should finesse but he is constrained by his promise not to choose= a >line of play which could fail in any case of 3-2 break. A promise is not a >claim, but it is a promise. > > Strictly speaking, I think this action is not a claim (a conditional claim is >not a claim) and is not allowed by the laws. Your declarer would have been in a >bad position if an ill-intentionned (or not?) LHO, with 4 diamonds, had= also >spread his hand saying: OK you claimed, let's all look at 4 hands and see >whether we need the TD to know how many tricks should be given to each= side. Well actually nobody was ill-intentionned but: Is the declarer allowed to make this sort of psycho-trick? Is this ethical? Or more sth like the Alcatraz Coup? >> >> >> The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether= the >> D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). >> >> What now? > >No problem if his line of play would have also been successful in all possible >cases of 3-2 diamond breaks. Further investigation needed if not, with= strong >suspicion against declarer. > There we are. Has this situation sth to do with the Alcatraz Coup? What=B4s the difference? All these questions.... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 22:43:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:43:55 +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 WAA19529 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:43:48 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-224.uunet.be [194.7.13.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06281 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 14:43:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37400567.5355E8D2@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:02:47 +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: Thoughts about thoughts. References: <3.0.6.32.19990517085551.007c7690@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by plutonium.uunet.be id OAA06281 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hallo Richard, Richard Bley wrote: >=20 >=20 > The absence of David is perhaps the reason for the quietness of this li= st... > ;-) > > > Well. > >I think this is to be solved via L73F2. E must have a demonstrable > Bridge-Reason for thinking. I think he has. > No score-adjustment... > I think there are players which might bid on with the E-hand (a fairly > substantial number) and many players which wouldn=B4t. So there seems t= o be a > case for thinking anyway. >=20 East does indeed have a demonstrable bridge reason for thinking. But it was my impression that East thought for an "unduly" long time. East does IMHO _not_ have a demonstrable reason for thinking a long time. There is nothing to work out. The points and distribution are clear, there is no opponent's bidding to ponder about, and you have had these hands before. Nothing to think about for more than say 5 seconds. So if it was a hesitation and a South who wants to gain something, no change. But if it was a long pause for thinking, and an East who is happy that he "got" opponents, adjust. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 22:43:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:43:56 +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 WAA19530 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:43:48 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-224.uunet.be [194.7.13.224]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06289 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 14:43:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374006CC.DBF779AD@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:08:44 +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: Where is the claim? References: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > > Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (expert > players) in which the following case took place: > > declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: > "If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." > > Is this a claim? > I think it is a claim : L68A ... A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless ...) I think he has fallen foul of both these definitions. I would allow a player, who did not know he had now claimed, some extra time in explaining his line of play, for the purposes of L68C, but I would not let play continue. > The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether the > D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). > I assume he played correctly because he knows by the non-acceptance, that they break 4-1. If he has followed a line he would not have chosen in the first place, he should be down. All the more reason for this to be a claim. > What now? one down -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 22:44:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:44:11 +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 WAA19542 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 22:43:56 +1000 Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 17 May 1999 14:43:19 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990517144358.007b9180@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:43:58 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:42:17 +0200 To: Eric Landau From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990517081546.00693660@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.d e> At 08:15 17.05.99 -0400, you wrote: >At 09:00 AM 5/17/99 +0200, Richard wrote: > >>Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (expert >>players) in which the following case took place: >> >>declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: >>"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." >> >>Is this a claim? > >Yes. L68A: "A contestant... claims... when he shows his cards (unless he >demonstrably did not intend to claim)." > But shown to whom? To both defender? To one? Is the fact, that he has shown his ards to only one defender perhaps a demonstrably shown action with the intend NOT to claim? After all: IS this a question of L68A sentence 1 or 2???? If this is a question of sentence 1 only, there might be no problem with the bracket sentence... Anyway: I dont know the answer. All answers seems very intelligent to me but they cant be all right or all wrong? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 23:13:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 23:13:55 +1000 Received: from peelsb.com ([207.81.165.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA19712 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 23:13:49 +1000 From: Martin_Hunter/psb@peelsb.com Received: by peelsb.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 85256774.0048D0C8 ; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:15:20 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: PDSB To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <85256774.0048CEA4.00@peelsb.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:04:01 -0400 Subject: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of turn. North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To make it worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S P,P,P South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken against NS? Thanks, Martin From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 17 23:34:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 May 1999 23:34:42 +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 XAA19793 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 23:34:35 +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 PAA22525 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 15:34:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905171334.PAA22525@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, 17 May 1999 15:35:42 +0200 Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.19990517141440.007afa80@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: > Just a forward >>I'm sure you will get some diffrerent answers, especially from our >> American friends, who loooove to have long arguments about >> this kind of legalistic nitpicking .... etc. OOPS! This was private. No offense meant!! I had no bad intentions, and I'm sure neither does Richard. JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 00:41:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 00:41:28 +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 AAA23265 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 00:41:19 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com (315) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pZACa02055 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 10:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6c4d4bae.24718423@aol.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 10:39:31 EDT Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/17/99 6:15:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Martin_Hunter/psb@peelsb.com writes: > Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of > turn. > North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To make > it > worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. > The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S > P,P,P > South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. > It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken against > NS? I throw the book at them. I have no problem whatsoever with the psyche. N took a risk that this might work. It's not like his partner was silenced for the entire auction. But I find it more than bothersome that S NEVER took a call on the given hand. I would like to use Law 73 to issue a penalty to N-S but doubt if I am comfortable with that since I can't determine the source of the UI. I am totally convinced that S somehow knew something. Therefore I will use Law 16B. I think S somehow knew something about this hand and didn't report it to the Director. I don't have to determine the source of the knowledge, just that I believe it happened. By applying Law 16B I can adjust the score if necessary and make it clear that I believe N-S cheated on this hand and I don't need to have an ethics hearing. It is simply a bridge adjustment. I find it is always a good idea to closely examine the actions of the partner of the psycher. When the psyche is fielded (as I believe it was in this case) before it is at all possible to "read" it, action MUST be taken against the psyching pair. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 01:00:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:00:28 +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 BAA23435 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:00:13 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA77124 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 May 1999 10:00:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0E0CY00O Mon, 17 May 99 09:58:21 Message-ID: <9905170958.0E0CY00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 17 May 99 09:58:21 Subject: THOUGHTS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>At 23:04 16.05.99 +0100, Grattan wrote: B>>Grattan B>>----------------------------------------------------------------- B>> " Everything should be made as simple as B>> possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] =20 B>>lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ll B>lll B>>lllllllllllllllllllllll =20 B>> B>>+++ In the absence of David here is a stop gap example B>>of a ruling from the eight teams final of a teams=20 B>>championship. (Crockfords Cup Final, May 1999) B>The absence of David is perhaps the reason for the quietness of this B>list... B>;-) B>> B>> K 8 4 B>> K Q 5 B>> J 9 2 B>> K 7 5 2 B>>10 2 J 9 6 B>>7 6 3 J 9 8 4 B>>A Q 6 4 K 5 3 B>>A Q 10 3 9 8 4 B>> A Q 7 5 3 B>> A 10 2 B>> 10 8 7=20 B>> J 6 B>> B>>Love all. Dealer West. B>>Auction: B>> West B>> 1NT all pass. B>> B>>When dummy was faced North called the TD and asked to reserve B>>his rights since East had taken unduly long to consider a Pass when B>>he "had nothing to think about". It was agreed that East had B>>considered for longer than normal before passing. -s- B>>The Director then thought the matter over some more on his own=20 B>>and decided to award an adjusted score of Two Spades making=20 B>>9 tricks, and quoting Law 73D1. He commented that in his=20 B>>opinion this was unlikely to have been the first time East had=20 B>>possessed a balanced 5-count opposite a Weak No Trump opener.=20 B>>The ruling was not appealed so my view as referee (working with=20 B>>telephone opinion from another panel referee) was never called=20 B>>upon. B>> B>> B>Well. B>>I think this is to be solved via L73F2. E must have a demonstrable B>Bridge-Reason for thinking. I think he has.=20 B>No score-adjustment... B>I think there are players which might bid on with the E-hand (a fairly B>substantial number) and many players which wouldn=B4t. So there seems to B>be = a >case for thinking anyway.=20 May I quote DWS: <> Roger Pewick B>Remark: This substantial number of players should be around 5% or so to B>be valuable...=20 B>Richard B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 01:00:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:00:44 +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 BAA23442 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:00:32 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA77126 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 May 1999 10:00:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0E0EW00P Mon, 17 May 99 09:58:25 Message-ID: <9905170958.0E0EW00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 17 May 99 09:58:25 Subject: WHERE IS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Mon, 17 May 1999 09:00:25 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: B>>declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: B>Law 68A states that uttering a statement about future tricks or B>showing your cards is a claim. Declarer did both. 68D says that B>play then ceases. B>>"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." B>>Is this a claim? B>Yes. B>>What now? B>TD wasn't called as (s)he should have been. What can you do? [Once the score was agreed and the cards have been returned to the board, the defenders have lost some rights.] If the score has not yet been agreed, the director will find that a claim had been made [L68A] but play did not cease in accordance with L68D. The director cancels [L68D] the subsequent play and applies L70. He explores all normal lines of play consistent with 3-2 diamonds for a losing line[s] and supposedly will find one or more and so rule. If the score had been agreed then L71 is applied. Since declarer has proven that all lines of play do not result in going down, the result would stand. As can be seen in this example and the Kaplan story, the information gained by the defender's not acquiescing can provide a telling difference to the future play. Undoubtedly, this is the primary reason that play ceases once a claim/concession has been made. Roger Pewick B>Bertel B>-- B>Denmark, Europe B>http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 01:01:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:01:00 +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 BAA23452 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:00:47 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA77130 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 May 1999 10:00:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0E0GT00Q Mon, 17 May 99 09:58:29 Message-ID: <9905170958.0E0GT00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 17 May 99 09:58:29 Subject: UNUSUAL MI DA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As far as the errant aces and 5's [fouled board, eh] I am inclined to wait for a correction from the source. Many times when MI is present, a reasonable player would have acted differently had there been no MI. This is not such a case. I am probably not alone in believing that a penalty double of an overcaller with 4 trump is more likely to succeed than when overcaller has more than 4 trump. It would seem that the information that S was willing to play 2SX opposite a four card suit would have more to do with E wanting to change his call to 3H [pass infers that opener is short in spades and not S] than the agreement that 2S was takeout with 4 spades. Given the kind of hands on which they open the bidding vulnerable, the argument that they would not double because of the likelihood of the other side finding another suit does not hold water given that East claims he would have bid 3H instead of double. In as much as NS did not look for another suit, the reason for retracting the double no longer exists. Also, the MI was corrected at the proper time so as to not damage the defense. I would find that EW's score was a result of their skill and that the MI did not damage so the score would stand. I would also find the time to educate NS of their responsibility to comply with the alert procedure. Roger Pewick B>This unusual situation arose yesterday. B>E/EW B> A974 B> 1094 B> AQ B> A852 B>8 QJ1063 B>K87632 AJ5 B>K103 AJ5 B>K97 J6 B> K52 B> Q B> 98652 B> Q1043 B>E S W N B>P P 2H 6-10) 2S B>Dbl All pass. B>Before the opening lead, North explained that his 2S call should have B>been alerted. His bid was a general takeout double, promising four B>spades. B>Immediately ( before his opening lead) East called the TD, claiming he B>would have taken different action had the alert been made at the B>appropriate time. As partner has since passed, the TD could not allow B>him to change his call, and play proceeded. 2SX made through less than B>perfect defence. Recalling the TD, East claimed that, had the alert been B>made at the correct time, he would have bid 3H rather than double 2S. B>His reasons: if North's bid is a general takeout double, East's hand B>suggests that the opponents very likely have a better fit elsewhere, B>which they may well find if he doubles. He would have bid 3H rather than B>double had the alert been made at the correct time. B>So we have the unusual situation where East would happily have doubled B>had the 2S call shown 5+ cards, but not if it can show only 4 cards! He B>was correctly concerned that NS might find a better fit, which they have B>but didn't find! Of course, this could be an astute East laying the B>groundwork for an adjusted score if the 2SX produced a poor result, but B>I doubt that this was the case. The contract made from poor defence, but B>not wild or irrational. B>Opinions please. B>Reg. B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 01:34:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:34:54 +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 BAA23547 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:34:46 +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 LAA25328 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 11:34:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 11:34:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905171534.LAA08007@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <6c4d4bae.24718423@aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig writes: > In a message dated 5/17/99 6:15:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > Martin_Hunter/psb@peelsb.com writes: >> Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of >> turn. >> North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To > make >> it >> worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. >> The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S >> P,P,P >> South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. >> It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken > against >> NS? > I throw the book at them. > I have no problem whatsoever with the psyche. N took a risk that this might > work. I do have a problem with the psyche. The fact that South must pass in turn is AI to North, but the fact that South passed out of turn, and thus does not have an opening bid, is UI which makes the psyche more attractive. -- 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 May 18 01:36:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:36:04 +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 BAA23564 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 01:35:57 +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 IAA14721 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 08:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003801bea07a$f230eee0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <85256774.0048CEA4.00@peelsb.com> Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 08:30:25 -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 Martin Hunter wrote: > > Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of turn. > North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To make it > worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. > The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S > P,P,P > South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. > It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken against NS? We had this thread before, but I've forgotten what came out of it. The lawmakers took care of this matter in 1997: 72A5: Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit from their own infraction. 16C2: For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action...is unauthorized. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. This is a mostly unnoticed 1997 change in the Laws, for the 1987/1990 16C2 said that withdrawn actions of the offending side are AI for the offenders. The reference to L16C2 in L72A5 was added at the same time. While it may be going too far (or is it?) to say that North must bid as if he didn't know partner is barred, the fact that South lacks values for an opening bid is surely UI. Since the psych was obviously suggested by that UI, it is illegal. Even under the old Laws, this psych was considered to be unethical, although legal. In *Bridge Players Dictionary," Terence Reese wrote: "Even when a player has to pay a penalty for an infringement, he must not seek to exploit the situation to his advantage. For example, a player whose partner is debarred from the auction should not attempt to profit from that immunity by making a psychic bid." Part VIII 1. of the rubber bridge Laws says: The guiding principle: the side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not to gain directly from the infraction itself; however, the offending side is entitled to profit after an infraction, as an indirect result, through subsequent good fortune. Ergo, the psych would be outlawed in rubber bridge too, since its success is a direct result of the infraction. However, bidding a gambling 3NT that makes would come under the heading of "good fortune," IMO. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 02:16:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 02:16:07 +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 CAA23773 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 02:15:47 +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 QAA22952; Mon, 17 May 1999 16:21:34 GMT Message-ID: <374032E1.CBC251AD@emtex.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 16:16:49 +0100 From: Trevor Walker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin_Hunter/psb@peelsb.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: <85256774.0048CEA4.00@peelsb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I can see no reason to take any 'action against NS'. North, knowing that his partner must pass for one round(UI), presumably attempted to prevent the opponents from finding a heart contract. South, knowing that North knew he had to pass(UI), took a chance but correctly dissembled what was happening. Why is any action indicated against NS? Trevor Martin_Hunter/psb@peelsb.com wrote: > > Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of turn. > North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To make it > worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. > The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S > P,P,P > South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. > It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken against NS? > Thanks, Martin From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 02:46:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 02:46:24 +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 CAA23819 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 02:46:19 +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 JAA23349 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 09:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006901bea084$c70874e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <6c4d4bae.24718423@aol.com> Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:37:39 -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 Alan LeBendig wrote: > Martin_Hunter/psb@peelsb.com writes: > > > Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of > > turn. > > North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To > make > > it > > worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. > > The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S > > P,P,P > > South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. > > It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken > against > > NS? > > I throw the book at them. > > I have no problem whatsoever with the psyche. N took a risk that this might > work. It's not like his partner was silenced for the entire auction. But I > find it more than bothersome that S NEVER took a call on the given hand. I > would like to use Law 73 to issue a penalty to N-S but doubt if I am > comfortable with that since I can't determine the source of the UI. I am > totally convinced that S somehow knew something. Therefore I will use Law > 16B. I think S somehow knew something about this hand and didn't report it > to the Director. I don't have to determine the source of the knowledge, just > that I believe it happened. By applying Law 16B I can adjust the score if > necessary and make it clear that I believe N-S cheated on this hand and I > don't need to have an ethics hearing. It is simply a bridge adjustment. > > I find it is always a good idea to closely examine the actions of the partner > of the psycher. When the psyche is fielded (as I believe it was in this > case) before it is at all possible to "read" it, action MUST be taken against > the psyching pair. > It could be that South did not know he could bid on the next round, even if he is experienced. Had someone previously bid before the POOT, he would be barred permanently from the auction if it was North's turn to bid. It is not unusual for even good players to be unaware of some of these subtleties in the Laws, and I hope that the TD in this case explained the Law properly. If so, it does look like a fielded psych. Whatever, L16C2 makes the psych itself illegal, IMO, even if South has another chance to bid. Unfortunately, L16C2 does not explicitly give the steps to be taken after an infraction of this nature. Adjustment of score in the case of damage, no problem with that. But if the TD has explained to an experienced North the provisions of L16C2 and he psychs anyway, that is failure to follow the instructions of a TD, which is grounds for a Procedural Penalty (L90B8), damage or no damage. It would be helpful if the TD statements, if any, were included in these accounts. Also, if a deal is from rubber bridge, that should be mentioned. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 04:34:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 04:34:07 +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 EAA24071 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 04:33:59 +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 OAA09567 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 14:47:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990517143423.006f7624@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:34:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: <85256774.0048CEA4.00@peelsb.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:04 AM 5/17/99 -0400, Martin wrote: >Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of turn. >North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To make it >worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. >The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S > P,P,P >South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. >It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken against NS? Why would you want to take action against N-S? S committed an infraction and has paid the penalty. N's right to psych is protected by L40A, which, in my lawbook, doesn't say anything about S's being barred compromising that right. 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 May 18 04:55:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 04:55:24 +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 EAA24112 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 04:55:18 +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 PAA11708 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 15:08:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990517145534.00685814@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:55:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: <6c4d4bae.24718423@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:39 AM 5/17/99 EDT, AlLeBendig wrote: >In a message dated 5/17/99 6:15:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >Martin_Hunter/psb@peelsb.com writes: > >> Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of >> turn. >> North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To >make >> it >> worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. >> The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S >> P,P,P >> South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. >> It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken >against >> NS? > >I throw the book at them. > >I have no problem whatsoever with the psyche. N took a risk that this might >work. It's not like his partner was silenced for the entire auction. But I >find it more than bothersome that S NEVER took a call on the given hand. I >would like to use Law 73 to issue a penalty to N-S but doubt if I am >comfortable with that since I can't determine the source of the UI. I am >totally convinced that S somehow knew something. Therefore I will use Law >16B. I think S somehow knew something about this hand and didn't report it >to the Director. I don't have to determine the source of the knowledge, just >that I believe it happened. By applying Law 16B I can adjust the score if >necessary and make it clear that I believe N-S cheated on this hand and I >don't need to have an ethics hearing. It is simply a bridge adjustment. > >I find it is always a good idea to closely examine the actions of the partner >of the psycher. When the psyche is fielded (as I believe it was in this >case) before it is at all possible to "read" it, action MUST be taken against >the psyching pair. Oops. Please ignore my previous response in this thread. I had overlooked the fact that South was barred for only one round, not the entire auction, and so had completely missed the point, which, as Alan points out, was not N's psych, but S's likely fielding of it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 05:01:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 05:01:42 +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 FAA24134 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 05:01:35 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h104.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA13724; Mon, 17 May 1999 23:01:19 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3740F50B.7498@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 22:05:15 -0700 Reply-To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Bley CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Where is the claim? References: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I agree with Roger Pewick's analysis of the case but: maybe I am occupied by ethic problem too much but it seems to me as 100% Alkatraz coup (especially - at high level international tournament). So - at least lots of PPs, at most - disciplinary hearing. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 05:57:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 05:57:55 +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 FAA24329 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 05:57:49 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id OAA81640 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 May 1999 14:57:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0KZLG01M Mon, 17 May 99 14:56:25 Message-ID: <9905171456.0KZLG01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 17 May 99 14:56:25 Subject: WHERE IS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Richard Bley wrote: B>> B>> Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams B>(expert > players) in which the following case took place: B>> B>> declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: B>> "If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." B>> B>> Is this a claim? B>> -s- B>I would allow a player, who did not know he had now claimed, B>some extra time in explaining his line of play, But only if the player was a top expert. Roger Pewick B>for the purposes of L68C, but I would not let play continue. 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 Tue May 18 07:09:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 07:09:48 +1000 Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA24513 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 07:09:42 +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 <19990517210936.CVNQ14950.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 14:09:36 -0700 Message-ID: <374086B8.EE41911A@home.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 14:14:32 -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: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: <6c4d4bae.24718423@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I find this analysis/approach close to 180 degrees wrong (although I have sympathy for an emotional reaction to something that certainly looks far from kosher). AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > I throw the book at them. Careful, it might get thrown right back at you :-) > I have no problem whatsoever with the psyche. N took a risk that this might > work. But the risk was *substantially* reduced by the knowledge that pard had less than an opening, ie dealer essentially found himself as if in 3rd position. This seems clearly UI from pard's withdrawn action so L16C2 applies. Was the psyche a "logical" alternative? To this North apparently it was, and the UI certainly suggested it over passing. I would disallow the 1H opening and adjust the score if there was damage (I assume there was) as per L12C2. > It's not like his partner was silenced for the entire auction. But I > find it more than bothersome that S NEVER took a call on the given hand. So do I. I would start by asking him why. Such an "interview" very often gives a clue as to how "sinister" (if at all) the motives/inaction was. I'd also find out this pairs psyching-tendencies. Based on all this I'd do whatever the SO requires if I judge the psyche was improperly fielded. > I would like to use Law 73 to issue a penalty to N-S but doubt if I am > comfortable with that since I can't determine the source of the UI. I am > totally convinced that S somehow knew something. Therefore I will use Law > 16B. I think S somehow knew something about this hand and didn't report it > to the Director. I don't have to determine the source of the knowledge, just > that I believe it happened. >From where do you get the idea that using L16B one need not identify the UI, whereas using L73 one does? > By applying Law 16B I can adjust the score if > necessary Why do it in a contrived way when you just need to continue reading a couple of more paragraphs to do it in a straightforward manner? > and make it clear that I believe N-S cheated on this hand and I > don't need to have an ethics hearing. Aha - that's why! I thought the procedure in ACBL was just the other way around. You can *not* accuse players of cheating but you *can* refer it to a C&E hearing. I learn something new every day. > It is simply a bridge adjustment. No it is not. Under L16B you can only award an *artificial* adjusted score (which already tells us what situations L16B intends to cover). That is certainly *not* a "bridge" result, and that limitation does *not* exist if the adjustment is awarded under L16C2. > I find it is always a good idea to closely examine the actions of the partner > of the psycher. When the psyche is fielded (as I believe it was in this > case) before it is at all possible to "read" it, action MUST be taken against > the psyching pair. But it should be done in the authorised way, not by taking the law in one's own hand like some vigilante, misusing one's power and the laws to dish out one's own version of "justice". From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 08:00:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 08:00:39 +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 IAA24645 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 08:00:33 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-73.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.174]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA03814 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <374092DB.8C6ECDE0@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:06:19 -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: Declarer faces cards Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but the word may in this law bothers me. "B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then applies." My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't know if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? : From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 08:15:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 08:15:09 +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 IAA24680 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 08:15:00 +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 SAA13569 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA27948 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 May 1999 18:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 18:14:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905172214.SAA27948@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unusual MI damage? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Jaap Herman" > East's arguments are foul; either N or S is surely very short in > hearts. In other words, also wenn 2S would show at least 5 spades, NS > are bound to have another fit in one of the minors. Sorry, but if I understand the above argument correctly, it seems to be mistaken. It seems to be saying _given the MI_, East's double was a poor one. That may be so, but it's irrelevant. (I hope no one argues the double was irrational, wild, or gambling.) The proper question is this: given correct information (CI), what would have happened? I think CI makes the double much less attractive and 3H much more attractive. If 2S is a normal overcall, the expectation is that North will have at least five _good_ spades and often six or more. South will not usually run from the double even with a singleton spade. With the actual agreement, presumably showing four average spades or maybe only four poor ones _and_ good holdings in the unbid suits, South is _expected_ to bid unless he has a spade fit. East cannot reasonably expect that a double of 2S will be left in, and thus an immediate 3H is much more attractive. Pass is also possible, depending on who really has that D-A. There are a number of questions that were not answered in the original message. For example, did the TD ask East privately what he would have done with CI, and what did East say? But on the surface, it appears that EW have a strong case for adjustment to a result in 3H. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 08:20:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 08:20:42 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA24694 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 08:20:36 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa26469; 17 May 99 15:20 PDT To: bridge-laws CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 May 1999 18:06:19 PDT." <374092DB.8C6ECDE0@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 15:19:57 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9905171520.aa26469@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy Dressing wrote: > A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his > hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer > in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but > the word may in this law bothers me. > "B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any > time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be > deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then > applies." > > My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his > cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't know > if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? I think the word "may" means that TD has to judge whether declarer was making a claim. In this case, he probably wasn't. If not, Law 48A applies. Declarer picks up his cards and the defense gets to defend double-dummy. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 10:21:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 10:21:54 +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 KAA25093 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 10:21:48 +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 UAA15010 for ; Mon, 17 May 1999 20:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990517202213.006a0194@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 20:22:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards In-Reply-To: <374092DB.8C6ECDE0@pinehurst.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:06 PM 5/17/99 -0400, Nancy wrote: >A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his >hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer >in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but >the word may in this law bothers me. >"B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any >time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be >deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then >applies." > >My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his >cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't know >if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? Presumably that's the case (or something like it); we can assume (although one could construct a rare hand for a counter-example) that declarer "demonstrably did not intend to claim" (L68A) when he spread his hand before seeing his dummy. The key word in L48B2 here is "may"; if he is not "deemed to have made a claim or concession" under L68A, L48A applies, and he is penalized, if at all, by the defense, who have seen his cards, not by the TD. 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 May 18 11:20:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 11:20:49 +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 LAA25211 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 11:20:43 +1000 Received: from modem59.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.187] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10jYYe-00071K-00; Tue, 18 May 1999 02:20:37 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Grabiner" , Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 02:19:10 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll ---------- > From: David Grabiner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche > Date: 17 May 1999 16:34 > --------------- \x/ --------------- > > I do have a problem with the psyche. The fact that South must pass in > turn is AI to North, but the fact that South passed out of turn, and > thus does not have an opening bid, is UI which makes the psyche more > attractive. > ++++ When we were drafting the 1987 laws I put forward the experience of the pass out of turn opposite dealer on an absolute yarborough., and the advantages to dealer that might accrue. The reference to (Law 23B) was added in Law 30A; the reference is now to 72B1. I think there is a problem with any strange action by North when South passes out of rotation before anyone else has called, because of the potential for collusion. If EW are damaged in such circumstances the Director should heed the nudge which Law 30A gives him. On the hand quoted we need to know what actions are available to South on the second round. A take-out double, for instance? But where we have an isolated instance with no damage to opponents there are few grounds for action, other than to observe the facts and keep an eye open for any repetition and a developing pattern of behaviour. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 12:37:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 12:37:09 +1000 Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA25387 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 12:37:03 +1000 Received: from default ([12.75.41.109]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990518023628.FZRR13052@default> for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 02:36:28 +0000 Message-ID: <02e001bea0d7$26802e20$a6284b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <374092DB.8C6ECDE0@pinehurst.net> Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:35:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy T Dressing > A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his > hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer > in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but > the word may in this law bothers me. > "B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any > time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be > deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then > applies." > > My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his > cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't know > if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? A S K H I M ! Don't presume or assume. Many time the players will tell you the truth! Better to investigate before you make a ruling rather than after. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 13:19:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 13:19:37 +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 NAA25488 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 13:19:31 +1000 Received: from pinehurst.net (tc-46.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.147]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA26330; Mon, 17 May 1999 23:19:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3740DDC5.B8547D2C@pinehurst.net> Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 23:25:57 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard F Beye CC: BLML Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards References: <374092DB.8C6ECDE0@pinehurst.net> <02e001bea0d7$26802e20$a6284b0c@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wasn't there!!! It was a question by a player about an incident that happened at another event on an earlier date.. I could not find a definitive answer in the law book, so I inquired here!! Local beginners ask me questions which I try to find answers for, and not from just anyone. . If I can't find a definitive answer, I ask the best experts I know. Lots of them are on this list, and I am hoping for a law or some kind of reference I can quote to this player. Nancy Richard F Beye wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Nancy T Dressing > > > A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his > > hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer > > in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but > > the word may in this law bothers me. > > "B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any > > time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be > > deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then > > applies." > > > > My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his > > cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't know > > if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? > > A S K H I M ! > Don't presume or assume. Many time the players will tell you the truth! > Better to investigate before you make a ruling rather than after. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 20:52:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 20:52:14 +1000 Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA26191 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 20:52:07 +1000 Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.54]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990518105350.OFPL7869945.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 22:53:50 +1200 Message-ID: <374144F8.B6F7CAD3@xtra.co.nz> Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 22:46:16 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > " Everything should be made as simple as > possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] > llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll > > lllllllllll > ---------- > > From: David Grabiner > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche > > Date: 17 May 1999 16:34 > > > --------------- \x/ --------------- > > > > I do have a problem with the psyche. The fact that South must pass in > > turn is AI to North, but the fact that South passed out of turn, and > > thus does not have an opening bid, is UI which makes the psyche more > > attractive. > > > ++++ When we were drafting the 1987 laws I put forward the experience > of the pass out of turn opposite dealer on an absolute yarborough., and the > advantages to dealer that might accrue. The reference to (Law 23B) was > added in Law 30A; the reference is now to 72B1. > I think there is a problem with any strange action by North when > South passes out of rotation before anyone else has called, because > of the potential for collusion. If EW are damaged in such circumstances > the Director should heed the nudge which Law 30A gives him. I assume you mean if South "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity". But how could South have known that the pass would be likely to damage the non-offenders? This does not make sense - it is more likely to damage South's own side. For South to have known that the penalty would damage the non-offenders he would need to know that his partner has a poor (below average hand) and will not be guessing the contract on the first round of bidding. This is surely only possible if he has some UI about his partner's hand. And there is no suggestion of that here. The laws required South to pass, North knows this and South knows that North knows this *and* East West know that North knows this. Normal bridge bidding is not going to occur on the first round. If North has 20 points balanced he is likely to punt 3NT. A psyche since it is a gross distortion of what is written on my CC say gambling with a long running suit. With a good sound opening bid and a six-card heart suit he may bash 4 Hearts. And why not bid 1H on xxx AKxx xxx xxx for a lead or 1S on xx Qxxx Jxxx Kxx to mix things up. After paying the penalty (partner must pass) North is entitled to make *any* call. L72A5 "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction." L16C2 "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information." Notice the condition in L16C2 is not that the bid is more attractive as others have used but the much stronger phrase "demonstrably suggested". How does South's pass (this is the UI) suggest bidding 1S or 1H on a random pile of junk. IMO it does not. Rather my foreknowledge of partner's first round pass, allowed for in law, allows me to make a reduced risk psyche and conversely an increased risk punt at 3NT or 4S etc if I happen to hold a good hand. And what is more everyone at the table knows, general bridge knowledge not partnership agreement, that my first round calls are going to be distorted somewhat. > On the hand quoted we need to know what actions are available > to South on the second round. A take-out double, for instance? But where > we have an isolated instance with no damage to opponents there are few > grounds for action, other than to observe the facts and keep an eye open > for any repetition and a developing pattern of behaviour. > ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 18 22:06:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 May 1999 22:06:22 +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 WAA26486 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 22:06:13 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-90.uunet.be [194.7.9.90]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA10299 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 14:06:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3741532A.F54B3663@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 13:46:50 +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: Declarer faces cards References: <374092DB.8C6ECDE0@pinehurst.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nancy T Dressing wrote: > > A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his > hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer > in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but > the word may in this law bothers me. > "B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any > time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be > deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then > applies." > > My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his > cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't know > if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? > All really depends on his intention. I have once put down my cards in front of me, saying, "I am not claiming, but I need to find a squeeze here, and I want you to enjoy with me". Declarer is allowed to show all or any of his cards, but only if he does so with the intent of shortening the play does it constitute a claim. Of course when any of the declaring side puts his cards on the table as if he were dummy, either defender may lead, and "true" declarer has no choice but to accept the lead (he can choose to play himself or let his partner be declarer). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 01:22:19 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 01:22:19 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29400 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 01:22:12 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA99408 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 May 1999 10:22:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EIAO01B Tue, 18 May 99 10:19:38 Message-ID: <9905181019.0EIAO01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 18 May 99 10:19:38 Subject: OPENING P To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Grattan wrote: B>> B>> Grattan B>> B>> lllllllllll B>> ---------- B>> > From: David Grabiner B>> > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au B>> > Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche B>> > Date: 17 May 1999 16:34 B>> > B>> --------------- \x/ --------------- B>> > B>> > I do have a problem with the psyche. The fact that South must pass B>in > > turn is AI to North, but the fact that South passed out of turn, B>and > > thus does not have an opening bid, is UI which makes the psyche B>more > > attractive. B>> > B>> ++++ When we were drafting the 1987 laws I put forward the experience B>> of the pass out of turn opposite dealer on an absolute yarborough., B>and the > advantages to dealer that might accrue. The reference to (Law B>23B) was > added in Law 30A; the reference is now to 72B1. B>> I think there is a problem with any strange action by North B>when > South passes out of rotation before anyone else has called, B>because > of the potential for collusion. If EW are damaged in such B>circumstances > the Director should heed the nudge which Law 30A gives B>him. B>I assume you mean if South "could have known at the time of his B>irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the B>non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, B>afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending B>side gained an advantage through the irregularity". B>But how could South have known that the pass would be likely to damage B>the non-offenders? This does not make sense - it is more likely to B>damage South's own side. For South to have known that the penalty would B>damage the non-offenders he would need to know that his partner has a B>poor (below average hand) and will not be guessing the contract on the B>first round of bidding. This is surely only possible if he has some UI B>about his partner's hand. And there is no suggestion of that here. When an irregularity creates a situation where the side has the opportunity to take an action [different from the pair's agreements] that before was unprotected but becomes protected, and that opportunity is availed upon, is this not damage to the other side? Such actions are an advantage gained because ot the irregularity. The situation being discussed here being the protected psyche. It seems that general bridge knowledge is that an irregularity that can result in an enforced pass can create such a situation. Roger Pewick -s- B>Wayne B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 01:22:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 01:22:13 +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 BAA29393 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 01:22:05 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA99406 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 May 1999 10:21:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EI8S01A Tue, 18 May 99 10:19:35 Message-ID: <9905181019.0EI8S01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 18 May 99 10:19:35 Subject: DECLARER FACE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From the definitions: Declarer - The player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn). Apparently, nobody becomes declarer until the opening lead is faced, even though there is a declarer to be. Since the exposure of cards is during the auction period but after the auction, the exposure of declarer to be's cards is an infraction of L41C. L24 seems to apply- thus making all of the cards penalty cards. However, L48A states that declarer's and dummy's cards can not become penalty cards. Since the law apparently does not address declarer and dummy to be [DDTB], it would seem that the application of L48A would include DDTB since that information has been determined by the auction. Therefore, the exposed cards would be picked up and the lead reverts to the proper player. Also, L16C2 applies to dummy and dummy has lost rights for infraction of L42A2a. While this seems counter intuitive to L48B1/54A, it was declarer to be that committed the irregularity and the NOS must not be deprived of making the opening lead from the hand determined by the auction. Further, it seems that declarer to be has not lost the right to be declarer with the correct opening leader. Therefore, such an OLOOT would be subject to penalty and L54A may be, but not be required to be, applied at declarer's choice. To apply the law otherwise seems to give the declaring side the advantage of determining who gets to declare the hand merely by violating laws. Roger Pewick From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 01:22:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 01:22:27 +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 BAA29407 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 01:22:21 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id KAA99414 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 May 1999 10:22:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EICI01C Tue, 18 May 99 10:19:42 Message-ID: <9905181019.0EICI01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 18 May 99 10:19:42 Subject: DECLARER To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Nancy T Dressing wrote: B>> B>> A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his B>> hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer B>> in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but B>> the word may in this law bothers me. B>> "B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any B>> time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may B>be > deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then B>> applies." B>> B>> My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his B>> cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't B>know > if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? B>> B>All really depends on his intention. B>I have once put down my cards in front of me, saying, "I am B>not claiming, but I need to find a squeeze here, and I want B>you to enjoy with me". B>Declarer is allowed to show all or any of his cards, but B>only if he does so with the intent of shortening the play B>does it constitute a claim. B>Of course when any of the declaring side puts his cards on B>the table as if he were dummy, either defender may lead, and B>"true" declarer has no choice but to accept the lead (he can B>choose to play himself or let his partner be declarer). While either defender 'can' lead at that point, I am not convinced that they can necessarily do so without penalty or without giving up rights or force the exposed hand to be dummy. Roger Pewick 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 Wed May 19 07:51:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 07:51:42 +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 HAA00606 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 07:51:35 +1000 From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h86.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA19218; Wed, 19 May 1999 01:51:26 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <37426E6C.5993@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 00:55:24 -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: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) The problem of psychic bid with passing partner was discussed 9 months ago in John Probst's thread "Psyche when partner is silenced" - 194 posts, almost record number.That's why I prefer not to repeat arguments, just to agree with Rofer Pewich once more. And once more I have something to add: why in this case did South pass at second round of bidding (when prohibition to bid was over)? At the last hand? With hand that might be bid even at 4-th level (at least by 15% of players - especially after previos penalty Pass)? For me - it might prove that South suspected 1Heart as psychic bid (from previos playing history, from another case or any)... And did not alert it... I may be boring, but it might be enough for severe reprimand if he is weak/average player. And for hearing - if expert. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 09:46:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 09:46:46 +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 JAA00784 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 09:46:39 +1000 Received: from modem113.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.113] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10jtZB-0006nT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 00:46:34 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 00:33:39 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll > From: Adam Beneschan > To: bridge-laws > Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com > Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards > Date: 17 May 1999 23:19 > > > Nancy Dressing wrote: > > > A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his > > hand on the table before the opening lead?" > Adam wrote: > I think the word "may" means that TD has to judge whether declarer was > making a claim. In this case, he probably wasn't. If not, Law 48A > applies. Declarer picks up his cards and the defense gets to defend > double-dummy. > ++++ Yes, and as has also been said :*ask* declarer if he was claiming, and if not claiming ask him what happened. Mind you, be surprised if the defence achieves double-dummy accuracy! ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 09:46:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 09:46:46 +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 JAA00783 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 09:46:38 +1000 Received: from modem113.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.113] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10jtZ8-0006nT-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 00:46:31 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 00:24:50 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll > From: wayne > To: BLML Group > Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche > Date: 18 May 1999 11:46 > > > > > I assume you mean if South "could have known at the time of his > irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the > non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, > afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending > side gained an advantage through the irregularity". > > But how could South have known that the pass would be likely to damage > the non-offenders? This does not make sense - it is more likely to > damage South's own side. > > ++++ You do not think North could find it an advantage to know before he calls that his partner has a worthless hand and, on the first round at least, will be passing? There is no way he can use that information? That South could not imagine it, and realize that it could be likely to damage opponents? Oh, Sir, how pure the air of NZ must be! ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 09:47:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 09:47:16 +1000 Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15-old.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.121]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA00796 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 09:47:06 +1000 Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri1p14.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.94]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA07106 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 09:47:03 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990519092835.00758c5c@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:28:35 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Unusual MI damage? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apologies for misreporting the hand. I'll start again, with the correct hand, and some extra details. E/EW A974 1094 AQ A852 8 QJ1063 K87632 AJ5 K103 J74 K97 J6 K52 Q 98652 Q1043 E S W N P P 2H 6-10) 2S Dbl All pass. Before the opening lead, North explained that his 2S call should have been alerted. His bid was a general takeout double, promising four spades. Immediately ( before his opening lead) East called the TD, claiming he would have taken different action had the alert been made at the appropriate time, and wanting to change his double. Out of hearing of the table, he said that he now wished to bid 3H. As partner had since passed, the TD could not allow him to change his call, and play proceeded. 2SX made through less than perfect defence. Recalling the TD, East claimed that, had the alert been made at the correct time, he would have bid 3H rather than double 2S. His reasons: if North's bid is a general takeout double, East's hand suggests that the opponents very likely have a better fit elsewhere, which they may well find if he doubles. He would have bid 3H rather than double had the alert been made at the correct time. So we have the unusual situation where East would happily have doubled had the 2S call shown 5+ cards, but not if it can show only 4 cards! He was correctly concerned that NS might find a better fit, which they have but didn't find! It was not stated by East (a strong player), but it must by now have been clear to him that the reason why South did not seek a better fit was that she had reasonable tolerance for spades. Of course, this could be an astute East laying the groundwork for an adjusted score if the 2SX produced a poor result, but I doubt that this was the case. The TD had the strong impression that, at the first TD call, East thought he still had the right to change his call in view of the late alert. The contract made from poor defence, but not wild or irrational. The TD adjusted the score to EW +140. The committee, after much deliberation, agreed with the TD. The reasoning: if the alert had been made and explained at the correct time, East has a reasonable case to put that he would have bid 3H and not doubled. South's pass and implied tolerance for spades reinforces that view. The essence was that East was deprived of his opportunity to bid 3H by the failure to alert. The committee gave consideration to whether this was a double shot by an experienced player using the late alert to take out insurance against a poor score in 2SX, but on balance thought this was not so. Opinions please. Reg. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 10:04:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 10:04:44 +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 KAA00862 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 10:04:40 +1000 Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA06185 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 10:04:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990519100520.009e2850@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:05:21 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:46 18/05/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Of course when any of the declaring side puts his cards on >the table as if he were dummy, either defender may lead, and >"true" declarer has no choice but to accept the lead (he can >choose to play himself or let his partner be declarer). Does that mean if partner and I misbid in such a fashion as to wrong-side our contract we can recover by quickly having the preferred dummy-to-be drop their cards face-up on the table before the opening lead ? And the penalty is that the lead may come from either defender ? Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 10:12:24 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 10:12:24 +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 KAA00884 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 10:12:16 +1000 Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 10:12:16 +1000 Received: (qmail 25583 invoked from network); 19 May 1999 00:12:07 -0000 Received: from pm02-099.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.99) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 19 May 1999 00:12:07 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990518201040.3aff5974@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (16) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: a lead from "wrong" hand Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi The following hypothetical question is being raised. NS are bidding uncontested to 3NT and West gets on the lead and leads a card and the dummy comes down. At this moment West sees a couple of cards that are exactly the same as he have in his own hand and some small research gives that West is having the hand from the previous board still out. At this point you get called to the mess and what do we do from here. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 12:54:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:54:11 +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 MAA01092 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:54:05 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com 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 VAA20975 for ; Tue, 18 May 1999 21:50:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 86256776.001009F6 ; Tue, 18 May 1999 21:55:11 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANDERSEN CONSULTING To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <86256776.001008F0.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 04:52:19 +0100 Subject: Re: Unusual MI damage? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>E/EW A974 1094 AQ A852 8 QJ1063 K87632 AJ5 K103 J74 K97 J6 K52 Q 98652 Q1043 E S W N P P 2H 6-10) 2S Dbl All pass. Before the opening lead, North explained that his 2S call should have been alerted. His bid was a general takeout double, promising four spades. Immediately ( before his opening lead) East called the TD, claiming he would have taken different action had the alert been made at the appropriate time, and wanting to change his double. Out of hearing of the table, he said that he now wished to bid 3H. << I believe East and I really would adjust the score. The timing of his call (before dummy came down) and his obvious intent to bid 3H make it likely to me that he indeed would not have doubled after a correct explanation. My decision would have been -140, too. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 17:06:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 17:06:33 +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 RAA01454 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 17:06:27 +1000 Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 19 May 1999 09:05:53 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990519090553.007b7100@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 09:05:53 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Unusual MI damage? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990519092835.00758c5c@ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:28 19.05.99 +1000, Reg Busch wrote: >Apologies for misreporting the hand. I'll start again, with the correct >hand, and some extra details. >E/EW > A974 > 1094 > AQ > A852 >8 QJ1063 >K87632 AJ5 >K103 J74 >K97 J6 > K52 > Q > 98652 > Q1043 > >E S W N >P P 2H 6-10) 2S >Dbl All pass. > >Before the opening lead, North explained that his 2S call should have been >alerted. His bid was a general takeout double, promising four spades. >Immediately ( before his opening lead) East called the TD, claiming he >would have taken different action had the alert been made at the >appropriate time, and wanting to change his double. Out of hearing of the >table, he said that he now wished to bid 3H. As partner had since passed, >the TD could not allow him to change his call, and play proceeded. 2SX made >through less than perfect defence. Recalling the TD, East claimed that, had >the alert been made at the correct time, he would have bid 3H rather than >double 2S. His reasons: if North's bid is a general takeout double, East's >hand suggests that the opponents very likely have a better fit elsewhere, >which they may well find if he doubles. He would have bid 3H rather than >double had the alert been made at the correct time. > >So we have the unusual situation where East would happily have doubled had >the 2S call shown 5+ cards, but not if it can show only 4 cards! He was >correctly concerned that NS might find a better fit, which they have but >didn't find! It was not stated by East (a strong player), but it must by >now have been clear to him that the reason why South did not seek a better >fit was that she had reasonable tolerance for spades. > >Of course, this could be an astute East laying the groundwork for an >adjusted score if the 2SX produced a poor result, but I doubt that this was >the case. The TD had the strong impression that, at the first TD call, East >thought he still had the right to change his call in view of the late alert. > This case is a bit odd indeed. If N would have shown a 5 card spade suit, it is far more probable that this will be the spot where the opps are playing. Often this will result in a 5-1 fit (S doesnt know that N has only 5 spades;he might have 6 on the other side S has to have a very good alternative to pick another suit). After a take-out orientated bid of 2s S is very often trying for a better spot. So E has a good argument. E made a gambling double. It might work or it might not work. But now S has a head you win tail you lose situation. If he has a spade-fit (an the double was wrong then in result terms) he will pass. Without a good spade suit he will run in another comfortable place. Here the take-out meaning of 2s has the result in finding the best fit very often. If 2s would have been NAT that would not necessarily the case. Adjust the score to 3H. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 20:46:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 20:46:37 +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 UAA01818 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 20:46:30 +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 MAA08273; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:46:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905191046.MAA08273@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: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:47:23 +0200 Subject: Re: a lead from "wrong" hand Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.16.19990518201040.3aff5974@pop3.iag.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Hi > > > The following hypothetical question is being raised. > > NS are bidding uncontested to 3NT and West gets on the lead and leads a > card and the dummy comes down. At this moment West sees a couple of cards > that are exactly the same as he have in his own hand and some small > research gives that West is having the hand from the previous board still > out. At this point you get called to the mess and what do we do from here. > > > Robert See L17D. "If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards from a wrong board makes a call, that call is cancelled. If offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call, the Director shall assign *artificial* (emphasis mine) adjusted scores (see Law 90 for penalty) when offender's substituted call differs in any significant way from his cancelled call." During last february there has been a short thread on this topic. JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 20:56:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 20:56:23 +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 UAA01863 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 20:56:17 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-19.uunet.be [194.7.13.19]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06764 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:56:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37429073.EE43CFEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:20:35 +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: a lead from "wrong" hand References: <3.0.16.19990518201040.3aff5974@pop3.iag.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: > > Hi > > The following hypothetical question is being raised. > > NS are bidding uncontested to 3NT and West gets on the lead and leads a > card and the dummy comes down. At this moment West sees a couple of cards > that are exactly the same as he have in his own hand and some small > research gives that West is having the hand from the previous board still > out. At this point you get called to the mess and what do we do from here. > > Robert Let's distill the important points. West has made a number of calls, all passes, with a hand not belonging to the board being played. West has made an opening lead with this hand. L17D : all West's calls are canceled. Now that's a nice situation ! North has called over a canceled call, so L17D continues. West takes his original cards. He now has the option of changing any of his calls, in which case the TD shall assign an artificial adjusted score. Or he has the option of again passing, in which case the contract can be played. West has then made an opening lead, which can be : - a card also in his new hand (one chance in four !): L47E2a says the lead must be maintained and play can at last continue unhindered, axcept for the fact that it is UI to East that West's bidding and lead may in no way be related to West's actual holdings. - a card not in his hand : in fact there has been no lead, and yet dummy is faced. Actually the play period has not begun and dummy's are cards faced during the auction period. L24 does IMO _not_ apply, because it starts : "when the Director determines, during the auction (*), that _because of a player's action_ one or more cards of that player's hand where ..." It might be said that dummy has done no action. (*) is this sentence gramatically correct in English ? I could read it as if the TD has to determine this during the auction. Anyway, this is now a mess. West should lead, and cannot because he has UI about dummy's holding. I think the board has now also become unplayable. Final conclusion : if west chooses to pass again, and is able to lead exactly the same card as he originally did, the board can be played with some sense of normality. Otherwise, 40/60 is the normal result. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 20:56:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 20:56:22 +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 UAA01862 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 20:56:15 +1000 Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-19.uunet.be [194.7.13.19]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA06752 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:56:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37428BE4.4149D7FE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:01:08 +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: Declarer faces cards References: <3.0.32.19990519100520.009e2850@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: > > At 13:46 18/05/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Of course when any of the declaring side puts his cards on > >the table as if he were dummy, either defender may lead, and > >"true" declarer has no choice but to accept the lead (he can > >choose to play himself or let his partner be declarer). > > Does that mean if partner and I misbid in such a fashion as to wrong-side > our contract we can recover by quickly having the preferred dummy-to-be > drop their cards face-up on the table before the opening lead ? And the > penalty is that the lead may come from either defender ? > You can try it, but it won't work. You are declarer to-be, but you'd rather have partner play the contract, for whatever reason. You put your cards down. If your RHO is now silly enough to lead, you have to accept that, and have the choice of having partner play. But you had that choice anyway, if RHO made the mistake, without you putting your cards down. So this trick has nothing of the desired effect. What I meant was, suppose your RHO has a good lead, and knows it, while LHO doesn't. If you put your cards down, RHO now has the chance of leading and you have to accept. Oh no, that isn't true. It's only true if presumed declarer has seen cards from presumed dummy. He must then accept the lead out of turn. Forget what I wrote in the first place. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 22:13:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:13:32 +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 WAA02099 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:13:25 +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 IAA03388 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 08:26:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990519081401.0068d740@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 08:14:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: OPENING P In-Reply-To: <9905181019.0EIAO01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:19 AM 5/18/99, r,pewick wrote: >When an irregularity creates a situation where the side has the opportunity >to take an action [different from the pair's agreements] that before was >unprotected but becomes protected, and that opportunity is availed upon, is >this not damage to the other side? Such actions are an advantage gained >because ot the irregularity. The situation being discussed here being the >protected psyche. It seems that general bridge knowledge is that an >irregularity that can result in an enforced pass can create such a >situation. General bridge knowledge says that it *can* create such a situation, but it can also just as well create a disaster. The offender can't know at the point of the irregularity that his partner has a hand on which the enforced pass might make it more attractive to psych. Indeed, on balance the enforced pass will normally hurt the OS, albeit they might occasionally gain from it. It therefore does not seem as though L72B1 -- which pertains only to the irregularity itself -- comes into play. In which case the offender's partner is free to psych, protected by L72A5. 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 May 19 22:16:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:16:15 +1000 Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02116 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:16:05 +1000 Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <4553-6672>; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:15:39 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA13042 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:00:41 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: a lead from "wrong" hand Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:39:46 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F385@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883715B0FC@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >The following hypothetical question is being raised. > >NS are bidding uncontested to 3NT and West gets on the lead and leads a >card and the dummy comes down. At this moment West sees a couple of cards >that are exactly the same as he have in his own hand and some small >research gives that West is having the hand from the previous board still >out. At this point you get called to the mess and what do we do from here. Now that we have started the playing part and the dummy becomes visible, there is nothing that can be done anymore. The only thing is to give NS A+ and EW A-. However, if West discovered earlier that he had the wrong hand, recovery is possible: suppose South opens 1NT, West passes and before North can call, West discovers his mistake. West then takes the correct hand, his pass is cancelled and he may make any legal call with the correct hand. There are no penalties due to misinformation (there is none - the pass refers to a hand not belonging to the current deal). Should North have called after West, then if West makes the same call, the auction may continue; however if Wests call differs in any significant way from his cancelled call, the deal is cancelled (A+/A-). Martin Sinot sinot@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 22:16:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:16:18 +1000 Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02121 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:16:09 +1000 Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <4368-26530>; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:15:39 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA13090 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:07:47 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Declarer faces cards Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:46:55 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F386@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883715B0EF@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his >hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer >in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but >the word may in this law bothers me. >"B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any >time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be >deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then >applies." > >My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his >cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't know >if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? If declarer claims, then the director has to judge the claim. If not, declarer takes back his cards and playing continues, except that the opponents are probably very happy now... After all, declarer can show any card he likes without penalty, since he can never have a penalty card. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 19 22:28:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:28:25 +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 WAA02194 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:28:20 +1000 Received: from apl-solutions-1 (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA04282 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 08:41:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990519082858.006a0c54@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 08:28:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:24 AM 5/19/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >++++ You do not think North could find it an advantage to know >before he calls that his partner has a worthless hand and, on the first round >at least, will be passing? There is no way he can use that information? That >South could not imagine it, and realize that it could be likely to damage >opponents? Oh, Sir, how pure the air of NZ must be! ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Surely a pass by [a player who thinks he is] the dealer shows neither a worthless hand nor a hand that would pass in third seat regardless of partner's first call. Indeed, a first seat pass by most players doesn't even deny a hand that would open after P-P-?. Sure, if it did show a complete bust then the psych would become much more attractive and subject to redress. But it doesn't, and if partner guesses that his barred partner "has a worthless hand [that], on the first round at least, [would] be passing" and handles his own hand accordingly, he will most often be wrong, and should not be punished on the occasions when he happens to be right. 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 May 19 22:46:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:46:39 +1000 Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02251 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:46:33 +1000 Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <4436-6672>; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:45:37 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA14203 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:42:07 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Where is the claim? Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:21:14 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F387@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883715B0D3@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (expert >players) in which the following case took place: > >declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: >"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." > >Is this a claim? > >The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether the >D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). > >What now? To me, this is a claim. I would have to see the hands to make a decision, but at the table I probably would let declarer play the suit wrongly, unless declarer has a very good story why he played as he did. I have the strong feeling that declarer woke up when nobody answered his statement, so I'm going to ignore the fact that he handled the suit correctly after his statement. Indeed this is very similar to the infamous Alcatraz-coup: NS have 11 spades without the King. Declarer South must find the King and leads a small spade from dummy, East follows and South plays Ace of clubs!, West a small club. "Oops, wrong card", says South and hastily replaces the Ace of clubs with the Queen of spades for the now sure finesse. (After which West, knowing South, also replaces his card with the King of spades: "It's unbelievable, but I too played the wrong card...") :-> Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 00:20:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 00:20:46 +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 AAA04815 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 00:20:37 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA27691 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:20:00 GMT Message-ID: <3742C8B3.3DC79B47@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:20:35 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: Re: Where is the claim? References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F387@xion.spase.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id OAA27691 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot a =E9crit : > >Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (e= xpert > >players) in which the following case took place: > > > >declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: > >"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." > > > >Is this a claim? > > > >The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether= the > >D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). > > > >What now? > > To me, this is a claim. I would have to see the hands to make a decisio= n, > but at the table I probably would let declarer play the suit wrongly, > unless declarer has a very good story why he played as he did. I have > the strong feeling that declarer woke up when nobody answered his > statement, so I'm going to ignore the fact that he handled the suit > correctly after his statement. > > Indeed this is very similar to the infamous Alcatraz-coup: NS have 11 s= pades > without the King. Declarer South must find the King and leads a small s= pade > from dummy, East follows and South plays Ace of clubs!, West a small cl= ub. > "Oops, wrong card", says South and hastily replaces the Ace of clubs wi= th > the Queen of spades for the now sure finesse. (After which West, knowin= g > South, also replaces his card with the King of spades: "It's unbelievab= le, > but I too played the wrong card...") :-> > > Martin Sinot I don't share your suspicion about declarer being machiavelic but we shou= ld learn more from the initial poster. My feeling was that declarer made a statement like this: "I can easily make all tricks if diamonds break and = anyway I will follow one of the lines that allow this, but I need some more time= to think about how to choose among these lines of play, the more accurate to protect against a bad break; if you tell me about the diamond break, we c= ould spare some time and anyway it wouldn't change anything to my problem if o= nly there is one." Obviously this "partial" claim is not allowed by the laws= and we wonder how harsh a TD should be with it. The comparison with the Alcatraz-coup, as I see it, would be this advice= : with 11 trumps lacking K and 2, declarer should act according to this line: pl= ay a trump towards the Ace and only start thinking how to play when the oppone= nt contributes with the 2. 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 May 20 00:34:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA04898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 00:34:40 +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 AAA04893 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 00:34:34 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA28955 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 15:33:56 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 19 May 99 14:20 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Unusual MI damage? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990519092835.00758c5c@ozemail.com.au> Reg Busch wrote: > > Apologies for misreporting the hand. I'll start again, with the correct > hand, and some extra details. > E/EW > A974 > 1094 > AQ > A852 > 8 QJ1063 > K87632 AJ5 > K103 J74 > K97 J6 > K52 > Q > 98652 > Q1043 > > E S W N > P P 2H 6-10) 2S > Dbl All pass. > > > The contract made from poor defence, but not wild or irrational. > Help! I can't see how 2S* can be beaten even on best defence (although it is a tricky contract for declarer) or indeed how 3H can be made without an unlikely (IMO) defensive error. However I do agree that East is more likely to bid 3H (particularly with such feeble values in the minors) if North's bid is correctly alerted. In such circumstances I think South may well compete to 3S (if North could have 5*) and could accept that this may be doubled by East and go one off (even 2 off if I decide that the different auction will lead North to select a less optimal line). Absent further info I would be inclined to adjust to EW:3H-1/NS:3S*-1. Tim West-Meads *does "promises 4" mean exactly 4 or at least 4 From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 02:01:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:01:36 +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 CAA05245 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:01:31 +1000 Received: from ip242.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.242]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990519160125.KHPF28514.fep1@ip242.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 18:01:25 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: a lead from "wrong" hand Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 18:01:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <374ae01e.3902341@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.16.19990518201040.3aff5974@pop3.iag.net> <37429073.EE43CFEB@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37429073.EE43CFEB@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 May 1999 12:20:35 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: >> The following hypothetical question is being raised. Nice timing! The exact same question, but not at all hypothetical, was raised yesterday on the Danish www-based bridge discussion forum (at http://www.webtrade.dk/dbf/discuss.nsf/($All)). >> NS are bidding uncontested to 3NT and West gets on the lead and leads = a >> card and the dummy comes down. At this moment West sees a couple of = cards >> that are exactly the same as he have in his own hand and some small >> research gives that West is having the hand from the previous board = still >> out. At this point you get called to the mess and what do we do from = here. > >West has made a number of calls, all passes, with a hand not >belonging to the board being played. >West has made an opening lead with this hand. > >L17D : all West's calls are canceled.=20 I doubt that. L17D concerns itself only with "a call", singular, and with the question of whether or not LHO has called. L17D does not cover the situation where the offender's partner has also called (as he has, perhaps several times, here). It seems meaningless to allow the auction to be repeated when W knows that E passes throughout. So it seems to me that the spirit of L17D extended to the case where partner has called must be that an artificial assigned score should be assigned immediately. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 02:01:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:01:27 +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 CAA05231 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:01:18 +1000 Received: from p43s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.68] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10k8mN-0004Zx-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 17:01:12 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bea210$8939de00$448a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 16:55:06 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 19 May 1999 13:51 Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche >At 12:24 AM 5/19/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >>++++ You do not think North could find it an advantage to know >>before he calls that his partner has a worthless hand and, on the first round >>at least, will be passing? There is no way he can use that information? That >>South could not imagine it, and realize that it could be likely to damage >>opponents? Oh, Sir, how pure the air of NZ must be! ~ Grattan ~ ++++ ................. \x/ ................ > >Sure, if it did show a >complete bust then the psych would become much more attractive and subject >to redress. But it doesn't, and if partner guesses that his barred partner >"has a worthless hand ............... +++ A psyche is more suggested than a standard call when South has withdrawn a pass out of rotation. The word 'guess' is not the best one for speculation in a situation where South's potential holdings are restricted. And the WBFLC agreed a provision to handle the position in particular where South's hand was virtually worthless and North relied upon its being so. It is there in the Law.++++ > .........[that], on the first round at least, [would] be >passing" .............. +++ Here what North knows is that South *will* be passing, knowledge that derives from the withdrawn call out of rotation.+++ >.........and handles his own hand accordingly, he will most often be >wrong, ............ ++++ I have my doubts about that; there is too much scope for collusion in malpractice, and the Director should use the powers the Laws give him if South "could have known" and North happens to choose the moment for a way out experiment. I am not talking about a reasonable constructive move by North, but I do not think abnormal destructive action to kill opponents' potential is acceptable in such a situation - and neither did the WBFLC in 1984/7.++++ >and should not be punished on the occasions when he happens to be right. +++ See above. ~ sceptically, Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 02:01:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:01:30 +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 CAA05236 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:01:24 +1000 Received: from ip242.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.242]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990519160118.KHOU28514.fep1@ip242.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 18:01:18 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 18:01:18 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3744d7ad.1740592@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.32.19990519100520.009e2850@acsys.anu.edu.au> <37428BE4.4149D7FE@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37428BE4.4149D7FE@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 May 1999 12:01:08 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >What I meant was, suppose your RHO has a good lead, and >knows it, while LHO doesn't. >If you put your cards down, RHO now has the chance of >leading and you have to accept. >Oh no, that isn't true. >It's only true if presumed declarer has seen cards from >presumed dummy. He must then accept the lead out of turn. And even then, RHO is not allowed to lead out of turn. If he does it by accident, then it is correct that the lead out of turn must be accepted, but if he does it deliberately, he is in serious breach of L72B2. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 02:13:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:13:43 +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 CAA05323 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:13:34 +1000 Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id MAA10055 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:13:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199905191613.MAA10055@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Where is the claim? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:13:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3742C8B3.3DC79B47@meteo.fr> from "Jean Pierre Rocafort" at May 19, 99 04:20:35 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca id MAA10055 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort writes: >=20 >=20 > Martin Sinot a =E9crit : >=20 > > >Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams = (expert > > >players) in which the following case took place: > > > > > >declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: > > >"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." > > > > > >Is this a claim? > > > > > >The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem wheth= er the > > >D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). > > > > > >What now? > > > > To me, this is a claim. I would have to see the hands to make a decis= ion, > > but at the table I probably would let declarer play the suit wrongly, > > unless declarer has a very good story why he played as he did. I have > > the strong feeling that declarer woke up when nobody answered his > > statement, so I'm going to ignore the fact that he handled the suit > > correctly after his statement. Not likely in this particular case.=20 > > > > Indeed this is very similar to the infamous Alcatraz-coup:=20 > > >=20 > I don't share your suspicion about declarer being machiavelic but we=20 > should learn more from the initial poster. My feeling was that declarer= =20 > made a statement like this: "I can easily make all tricks if diamonds=20 > break and anyway I will follow one of the lines that allow this, but=20 > I need some more time to think about how to choose among these lines=20 > of play, the more accurate to protect against a bad break; if you tell=20 > me about the diamond break, we could spare some time and anyway it=20 > wouldn't change anything to my problem if only there is one." =20 1. Declarer was Edgar Kaplan playing in the final of a major event. Don't recall who the opposition was, but it was one of the elite American pairs. And he was playing a grand. You can believe that he was wide awake on this one. What he said (after playing a top Diamond) was (almost a direct quote)=20 If diamonds are 3-2, I'm solid. Silence. So he was trying to achieve exactly what you said above. > Obviously this "partial" claim is not allowed by the laws and we > wonder how harsh a TD should be with it. Why did he make this "partial claim"? They'd received time warnings and he was trying to speed things up.=20 Kaplan wrote a fair amount about the hand. His opposition never felt damaged - at least I've never heard anything to indicate that they did. But then they won the match and that'll heal a lot. Kaplan felt that after making the statement that he had made, a=20 finesse after his opponent showed in would be unethical - but *perhaps* not illegal. He had no doubt that if the suit had been breaking, they'd have conceded. Thus it would be clearly correct to finesse (and he felt that if this finesse lost when they hadn't conceded it would serve him right. They would be within their rights to decline to concede.) I think context matters. If I'd made a statement like Kaplan's, I'd expect to be ruled down 1. I don't know how I feel about a different ruling for world class players. I could live with a blanket "you claimed. Incomplete statement." Standard ruling (which in this case=20 should I think be down 1) Worth noting though. There never was a director call or protest. --=20 RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 02:28:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:28:26 +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 CAA05375 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 02:28:18 +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 MAA24486 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA29522 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 12:28:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905191628.MAA29522@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: a lead from "wrong" hand X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Final conclusion : if west chooses to pass again, and is > able to lead exactly the same card as he originally did, the > board can be played with some sense of normality. Although the above is theoretically possible, I'm not at all sure this is a reasonable outcome. Nevertheless, I don't see any obvious way to avoid it. > Otherwise, 40/60 is the normal result. Yes, much as I dislike artificial scores, this seems to be where we end up. Is there any protection if NS have bid a spectacularly good contract that the rest of the field won't find? L12C1 seems to leave room to award them more than 60% (and the OS less). Should that be applied? What I'd like to do is give them no less than the score that would have been assigned if we had used L12C2 at the point of the opening lead, but I'm not sure that's legal. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 03:01:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 03:01:12 +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 DAA05542 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 03:01:06 +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 NAA27021 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 13:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:00:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905191700.NAA28060@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199905191613.MAA10055@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> (message from Ron Johnson on Wed, 19 May 1999 12:13:27 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson writes: > 1. Declarer was Edgar Kaplan playing in the final of a major event. > Don't recall who the opposition was, but it was one of the elite > American pairs. And he was playing a grand. You can believe that he > was wide awake on this one. > What he said (after playing a top Diamond) was (almost a direct quote) > If diamonds are 3-2, I'm solid. > Silence. > So he was trying to achieve exactly what you said above. In an event at this level, it's OK. However, against weaker opposition, there is a risk that one opponent could say, "I have four diamonds", and this could affect the subsequent play if there was a squeeze. -- 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 May 20 03:01:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 03:01:47 +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 DAA05559 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 03:01:39 +1000 Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA03861 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 17:01:04 GMT Message-ID: <3742EE75.E6211A1B@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 19:01:41 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Where is the claim? References: <199905191613.MAA10055@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by cadillac.meteo.fr id RAA03861 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson a =E9crit : > Jean Pierre Rocafort writes: > > > > > > Martin Sinot a =E9crit : > > > > > >Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international team= s (expert > > > >players) in which the following case took place: > > > > > > > >declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: > > > >"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." > > > > > > > >Is this a claim? > > > > > > > >The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whe= ther the > > > >D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). > > > > > > > >What now? > > > > > > To me, this is a claim. I would have to see the hands to make a dec= ision, > > > but at the table I probably would let declarer play the suit wrongl= y, > > > unless declarer has a very good story why he played as he did. I ha= ve > > > the strong feeling that declarer woke up when nobody answered his > > > statement, so I'm going to ignore the fact that he handled the suit > > > correctly after his statement. > > Not likely in this particular case. > > > > > > Indeed this is very similar to the infamous Alcatraz-coup: > > > > > > > I don't share your suspicion about declarer being machiavelic but we > > should learn more from the initial poster. My feeling was that declar= er > > made a statement like this: "I can easily make all tricks if diamonds > > break and anyway I will follow one of the lines that allow this, but > > I need some more time to think about how to choose among these lines > > of play, the more accurate to protect against a bad break; if you tel= l > > me about the diamond break, we could spare some time and anyway it > > wouldn't change anything to my problem if only there is one." > > 1. Declarer was Edgar Kaplan playing in the final of a major event. > Don't recall who the opposition was, but it was one of the elite > American pairs. And he was playing a grand. You can believe that he > was wide awake on this one. > > What he said (after playing a top Diamond) was (almost a direct quote) > If diamonds are 3-2, I'm solid. > > Silence. > > So he was trying to achieve exactly what you said above. > > > Obviously this "partial" claim is not allowed by the laws and we > > wonder how harsh a TD should be with it. > > Why did he make this "partial claim"? They'd received time warnings > and he was trying to speed things up. > > Kaplan wrote a fair amount about the hand. His opposition never felt > damaged - at least I've never heard anything to indicate that they > did. But then they won the match and that'll heal a lot. > > Kaplan felt that after making the statement that he had made, a > finesse after his opponent showed in would be unethical - but > *perhaps* not illegal. > > He had no doubt that if the suit had been breaking, they'd have > conceded. Thus it would be clearly correct to finesse (and he > felt that if this finesse lost when they hadn't conceded it > would serve him right. They would be within their rights to decline > to concede.) > > I think context matters. If I'd made a statement like Kaplan's, I'd > expect to be ruled down 1. I don't know how I feel about a different > ruling for world class players. I could live with a blanket "you > claimed. Incomplete statement." Standard ruling (which in this case > should I think be down 1) > > Worth noting though. There never was a director call or protest. > The problem from which I would like to learn more is the one from Bonn = last week which initiated this thread. In the grand played by Kaplan 20 years ago, as I remember, there was no c= all, no protest because declarer, finally guessed right (with AQ109 in front of K= 876 he played A then Q, saw a dicard and could finesse on the 3d round). And he = only discovered a posteriori the dilemma that could have arisen had he guessed= wrong on the 2d round. JP Rocafort > > -- > RNJ -- ___________________________________________________ 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 May 20 04:14:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 04:14:29 +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 EAA06225 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 04:14:19 +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 OAA01458 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA29582 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:14:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905191814.OAA29582@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OPENING P X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Indeed, on balance the enforced pass will normally hurt the OS.... "Normally" meaning for most of the possible hands that the out-of-turn passer might hold? No argument from me. If I pass out of turn with Kxxx Kxxx xx Axx, and partner has an opening bid, we are in trouble. On the other hand, if the out-of-turn passer's hand turns out to be xxx xxx xxx xxxx, I wonder whether Eric might reach a different conclusion. (This is Grattan's point expressed in less elegant language.) I, for one, would have a serious think about L72B1, but L16C2 applied to passer's partner would probably do the job in most cases. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 04:43:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 04:43:29 +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 EAA06482 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 04:43:23 +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 LAA22995 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 11:43:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008701bea227$75db8ea0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990519082858.006a0c54@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 11:35:48 -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: > > >++++ You do not think North could find it an advantage to know > >before he calls that his partner has a worthless hand and, on the first round > >at least, will be passing? There is no way he can use that information? That > >South could not imagine it, and realize that it could be likely to damage > >opponents? Oh, Sir, how pure the air of NZ must be! ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > Surely a pass by [a player who thinks he is] the dealer shows neither a > worthless hand nor a hand that would pass in third seat regardless of > partner's first call. Indeed, a first seat pass by most players doesn't > even deny a hand that would open after P-P-?. Sure, if it did show a > complete bust then the psych would become much more attractive and subject > to redress. But it doesn't, and if partner guesses that his barred partner > "has a worthless hand [that], on the first round at least, [would] be > passing" and handles his own hand accordingly, he will most often be wrong, > and should not be punished on the occasions when he happens to be right. > > But the psych is much less dangerous when partner is known not to have opening bid strength. The decision to psych was likely to have been based on the UI of the withdrawn pass, hence was illegal per L16C2. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 04:43:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 04:43:45 +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 EAA06491 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 04:43:39 +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 OAA29809 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 14:43:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 14:43:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905191843.OAA00712@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199905191814.OAA29582@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Wed, 19 May 1999 14:14:20 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: OPENING P Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: Eric Landau >> Indeed, on balance the enforced pass will normally hurt the OS.... > "Normally" meaning for most of the possible hands that the out-of-turn > passer might hold? No argument from me. If I pass out of turn with > Kxxx Kxxx xx Axx, and partner has an opening bid, we are in trouble. > On the other hand, if the out-of-turn passer's hand turns out to be > xxx xxx xxx xxxx, I wonder whether Eric might reach a different > conclusion. (This is Grattan's point expressed in less elegant > language.) I, for one, would have a serious think about L72B1, but > L16C2 applied to passer's partner would probably do the job in most > cases. I wouldn't impose an adjustment in this situation, because I don't believe the offender could have known the enforce pass would help his side. If opener has a 16-20 count, he will probably guess to bid 3NT, 4H, or 4S, and go down, possibly doubled. If he has less, the NOS will get into the bidding. I do agree with the L16C2 adjustment if opener psyches, or makes an off-shape preempt (say, with four spades on the side); these actions are made more attractive by the knoledge that partner doesn't have an opening bid. -- 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 May 20 06:23:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 06:23:04 +1000 Received: from inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com (inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com [192.86.155.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA06707 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 06:22:58 +1000 Received: from mailsun2.us.oracle.com (mailsun2.us.oracle.com [144.25.88.74]) by inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA22823; Wed, 19 May 1999 13:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dlsun565.us.oracle.com by mailsun2.us.oracle.com with ESMTP (SMI-8.6/37.8) id NAA13234; Wed, 19 May 1999 13:22:04 -0700 Received: (from jboyce@localhost) by dlsun565.us.oracle.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA27568; Wed, 19 May 1999 13:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:12:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Boyce Message-Id: <199905192012.NAA27568@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199905191814.OAA29582@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Wed, 19 May 1999 14:14:20 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Enforced passes (theory) was: OPENING PASS ... Reply-to: jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, I normally just watch the discussions on this list, but I feel that there are some possibly important points tht have been missed in this (and the previous) discussion of "Enforced pass" situations. I am replying to Steve Willner's message just because it was convenient and may help people with threaded mail readers. I have changed the subject of the message. For the rest of this message, North deals and South makes an opening Pass out of turn. 1) West will have an opportunity to accept that pass; the auction proceeds normally thereafter. Some time ago, when I still played with some regularity, I had the opportunity to make that choice. After the session, I discussed with partner whether I should have accepted the pass or required North to start the auction with South barred for 1 round. [This discussion was probably illegal in ACBL jurisdiction.] I will not describe the actual results of the discussion, lest both members of an ACBL partnership read the message and find the the ACBL, as a result, imputes that they have an agreement after an opponents irregularity and then issue them some sort of PP for an illegal agreement. But here a few observations: a) If West and North would both normally open, you are probably ahead of the field if you accept the POOT and bid normally. b) If North and South are both normally passing, it often doesn't really matter which of East and West bids first. c) If the par result of the hand is North-South positive, expecially if it is a big positive, you probably want North to guess. 2) If partner is barred, North can make any bid he chooses. I believe that he should adopt a mixed strategy, sometimes bidding what he thinks will score well, and sometimes bidding what he thinks will disrupt the opponents. 3) North-South probably have no agreements about this situation; in some jurisdictions, it is probably illegal for them to have such agreements. However, that means that is logically impossible for North to psych, to intentionally bid contrary to his agreements. 4) South can bid only if the opponents give him the opportunity. One can construct a cogent argument that South should pass if he believes the opponents will give him an opportunity to bid only when it is in their favor if he does. This may be analogous to the situation where declarer should be very careful if the defenders go out of their way to give him an extra dummy entry; does declarer really want to take that finesse? 5) For the laws commission sometime: These "enforced pass" situations do not "feel like bridge"; maybe some other approach can be taken in a future revision of the laws. 6) I haven't thought about the situation where South's OPOOT is strong and/or forcing. I suspect that it is less often right to accept the POOT. Is this covered by a different section of the LAWS? -jim From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 06:46:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA06749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 06:46:03 +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 GAA06744 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 06:45:57 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa15342; 19 May 99 13:44 PDT To: jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com cc: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Enforced passes (theory) was: OPENING PASS ... In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 May 1999 13:12:46 PDT." <199905192012.NAA27568@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 13:44:47 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9905191344.aa15342@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jim Boyce wrote: > 6) I haven't thought about the situation where South's OPOOT is strong > and/or forcing. I suspect that it is less often right to accept the > POOT. Is this covered by a different section of the LAWS? The Laws are indeed different. Law 30 deals with passing out of rotation. Law 30C says: When the pass out of rotation is a convention, Law 31, not this Law, will apply. A pass is a convention if, by special agreement, it promises more than a specified amount of strength, or if it artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. This means that a strong POOT is covered by the "bidding out of rotation" Law 31. The effect is that North is barred for the whole auction, instead of just for one round. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 07:23:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 07:23:20 +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 HAA06915 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 07:23:14 +1000 Received: from michael (user-2ivehb4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.100]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA31969 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 17:23:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990519172108.00728b9c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 17:21:08 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: <6c4d4bae.24718423@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:39 AM 5/17/99 EDT, Alan wrote: >I find it is always a good idea to closely examine the actions of the partner >of the psycher. When the psyche is fielded (as I believe it was in this >case) before it is at all possible to "read" it, action MUST be taken against >the psyching pair. > Laws or no laws. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 07:38:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 07:38:33 +1000 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA06961 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 07:38:26 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id QAA32369 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 16:38:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0NCRB019 Wed, 19 May 99 16:37:28 Message-ID: <9905191637.0NCRB01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 19 May 99 16:37:28 Subject: a lead from "wrong" hand To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I scrutinized L17D about a month ago and came to the erroneous conclusion that it was meant to be applied only during the auction period even though it did not make the stipulation. Herman points out correctly that there is no such stipulation. But I would bet my bottom euro that the WBFLC meant it. Given that there are numerous such stipulations in other laws but not in 17D the case is strong that 17D extends past the auction period. Further, it clearly states that if a call has been made from a hand of another board the call is cancelled- nothing equivocal about that. It seems that there is no L17F: [Once the auction period ends no call may be withdrawn/changed]- as in there is no prohibition to reopening the auction after the OL but merely the implication except for L17D. L21 deals with the consequences of MI from an opponent, not the effects of an arbitrary cancellation of an offender's call. Whether L17D is interpreted one way or another, it says that the auction is backed up/reopened when calls were made by an incorrect hand, and that the offender is allowed to substitute different calls. I personally do not like that in the least- after all, L17A says that a player has no recourse from their own misunderstanding. I note that L17D speaks only in the singular, not plural, and can see a way to interpret it to apply only to the point of one errant call except that the use of the singular does not preclude multiple singulars, and hence does not preclude the plural. Presumably L15B also applies since the errant hand has been played, even if not in its complete form. Given the issue of reopening the auction exists after the OL it seems that the issue also may exist that the auction will be repeated exactly and that play resume with the possibility that the player will not be able to repeat their plays. Maybe Herman has resolved the path that the laws provide but I am not inclined to the mental gymnastics at this time. I reckon that following L17D will not get us where we really desire to be. Roger Pewick B>Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: B>> B>> Hi B>> B>> The following hypothetical question is being raised. B>> B>> NS are bidding uncontested to 3NT and West gets on the lead and leads B>a > card and the dummy comes down. At this moment West sees a couple of B>cards > that are exactly the same as he have in his own hand and some B>small > research gives that West is having the hand from the previous B>board still > out. At this point you get called to the mess and what do B>we do from here. B>> B>> Robert B>Let's distill the important points. B>West has made a number of calls, all passes, with a hand not B>belonging to the board being played. B>West has made an opening lead with this hand. B>L17D : all West's calls are canceled. Now that's a nice B>situation ! B>North has called over a canceled call, so L17D continues. B>West takes his original cards. B>He now has the option of changing any of his calls, in which B>case the TD shall assign an artificial adjusted score. B>Or he has the option of again passing, in which case the B>contract can be played. B>West has then made an opening lead, which can be : B>- a card also in his new hand (one chance in four !): L47E2a B>says the lead must be maintained and play can at last B>continue unhindered, axcept for the fact that it is UI to B>East that West's bidding and lead may in no way be related B>to West's actual holdings. B>- a card not in his hand : in fact there has been no lead, B>and yet dummy is faced. Actually the play period has not B>begun and dummy's are cards faced during the auction period. B>L24 does IMO _not_ apply, because it starts : I disagree. An opening lead was made, the play period has begun. Ruling under L17D does not magically make an action not be an action. B>"when the Director determines, during the auction (*), that B>_because of a player's action_ one or more cards of that B>player's hand where ..." B>It might be said that dummy has done no action. However, merely anything 'might be said' does not make it true. I can see how something that happened can be treated as if it had not happened. B>(*) is this sentence gramatically correct in English ? I B>could read it as if the TD has to determine this during the B>auction. B>Anyway, this is now a mess. West should lead, and cannot B>because he has UI about dummy's holding. I think the board B>has now also become unplayable. B>Final conclusion : if west chooses to pass again, and is B>able to lead exactly the same card as he originally did, the B>board can be played with some sense of normality. B>Otherwise, 40/60 is the normal result. 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 May 20 07:38:42 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 07:38:42 +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 HAA06968 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 07:38:34 +1000 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id QAA32371 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 16:38:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0NCT601A Wed, 19 May 99 16:37:31 Message-ID: <9905191637.0NCT601@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 19 May 99 16:37:31 Subject: OPENING Pass To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric, It is distasteful to me that a player would undertake an enterprise that was available only because his side has committed an infraction. It matters not whether such an enterprise is likely to succeed or end in disaster. A deliberate psyche is an attempt to deceive. A psyche protected by the infraction of the psycher's side has decidedly less risk than one where partner has no inkling and is not barred. I do not believe that a protected violation of one's agreements is justifiable spoils of war. L72A5 gives the player 'permission' to make the call he thinks best. It does not 'protect' him from adjustment according to L75B1 which applies in this instance because the OS gained the advantage of a protected psych, that was not available without the infraction, which they took advantage of. Roger Pewick B>At 10:19 AM 5/18/99, r,pewick wrote: B>>When an irregularity creates a situation where the side has the B>opportunity >to take an action [different from the pair's agreements] B>that before was >unprotected but becomes protected, and that B>opportunity is availed upon, is >this not damage to the other side? B>Such actions are an advantage gained >because ot the irregularity. The B>situation being discussed here being the >protected psyche. It seems B>that general bridge knowledge is that an >irregularity that can result B>in an enforced pass can create such a >situation. B>General bridge knowledge says that it *can* create such a situation, but B>it can also just as well create a disaster. The offender can't know at B>the point of the irregularity that his partner has a hand on which the B>enforced pass might make it more attractive to psych. Indeed, on B>balance the enforced pass will normally hurt the OS, albeit they might B>occasionally gain from it. It therefore does not seem as though L72B1 B>-- which pertains only to the irregularity itself -- comes into play. B>In which case the offender's partner is free to psych, protected by B>L72A5. 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 May 20 08:14:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:14:36 +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 IAA07064 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:14:30 +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 PAA22247 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 15:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a801bea244$f4b60d00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199905192012.NAA27568@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> Subject: Re: Enforced passes (theory) was: OPENING PASS ... Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 15:09:37 -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: Jim Boyce > > For the rest of this message, North deals and South makes an opening > Pass out of turn. > (Big snip) > > 2) If partner is barred, North can make any bid he chooses. I believe > that he should adopt a mixed strategy, sometimes bidding what he > thinks will score well, and sometimes bidding what he thinks will > disrupt the opponents. > But partner is barred for only one round, since no bid preceded the POOT. The knowledge that he is barred is AI to North, but the withdrawn action (pass) is UI as of 1997 (L16C2). "North can make any bid he chooses" as long as it is not demonstrably suggested by the UI, or, if it is, there is no logical alternative to the bid. It seems to me South has to be very careful about taking some unusual action that makes use of the knowledge that partner could not open the bidding, and he is not going to get the benefit of any doubt. Whatever, I agree with Reese that it is unethical to exploit an irregularity by one's side, even if the penalty for doing so has been paid. To psych, or disrupt the opponents' auction because partner is barred, even for just one round, is not playing the game as it should be played. Yeah, I know L72A4 says it's okay. I suspect that language was added by Kaplan in 1975, to go along with his belief that one ought to do anything legal in order to win. In a kindlier day, 1963, with LC people like Vanderbilt (who invented the game, after all), von Zedtwitz, Landy, Baldwin, and in Europe, Butler, the pertinent law was worded thusly: Part VII, Proprieties 1. A player should carefully avoid taking any advantage which might accrue from an impropriety committed by his side. The current rubber bridge laws say this: "The side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not to gain directly from the infraction.." Those of us who do not adhere to the Kaplan principle go by that. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 08:22:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:22:37 +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 IAA07097 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:22:29 +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 10kEjF-000Lbx-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:22:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:16:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.19990517090025.007c4780@mail.rz.uni- duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes >Last thursday in Bonn there was an invitational international teams (expert >players) in which the following case took place: > >declarer says to his LHO and shows his hand thereby: >"If the D break 3-2 I will make the contract." > >Is this a claim? I am inclined to rule that this is a claim, albeit conditional. Law 68A refers > >The LHO plays on and now the declarer has to solve the problem whether the >D break 3-2. He plays correct (suit breaks 4-1). > >What now? I'd rule that if any normal line exists that loses a trick when they break 4-1 but works when they are 3-2 then that trick is lost. Law 70E. -- 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 May 20 08:22:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:22:37 +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 IAA07096 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:22:30 +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 10kEjE-0005S6-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:22:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:11:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: OPENING P In-Reply-To: <199905191814.OAA29582@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199905191814.OAA29582@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Eric Landau >> Indeed, on balance the enforced pass will normally hurt the OS.... > >"Normally" meaning for most of the possible hands that the out-of-turn >passer might hold? No argument from me. If I pass out of turn with >Kxxx Kxxx xx Axx, and partner has an opening bid, we are in trouble. > >On the other hand, if the out-of-turn passer's hand turns out to be >xxx xxx xxx xxxx, I wonder whether Eric might reach a different >conclusion. (This is Grattan's point expressed in less elegant >language.) I, for one, would have a serious think about L72B1, but >L16C2 applied to passer's partner would probably do the job in most >cases. Indeed I'd accept that one *could know* that a POOT on this might cause damage. -- 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 May 20 08:22:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:22:40 +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 IAA07098 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:22:30 +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 10kEjH-000IC1-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:22:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:20:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Thoughts about thoughts. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Grattan writes >Grattan >----------------------------------------------------------------- > " Everything should be made as simple as > possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] >llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll >lllllllllllllllllllllll > >+++ In the absence of David here is a stop gap example >of a ruling from the eight teams final of a teams >championship. (Crockfords Cup Final, May 1999) > > K 8 4 > K Q 5 > J 9 2 > K 7 5 2 >10 2 J 9 6 >7 6 3 J 9 8 4 >A Q 6 4 K 5 3 >A Q 10 3 9 8 4 > A Q 7 5 3 > A 10 2 > 10 8 7 > J 6 > >Love all. Dealer West. >Auction: > West > 1NT all pass. > >When dummy was faced North called the TD and asked to reserve >his rights since East had taken unduly long to consider a Pass when >he "had nothing to think about". It was agreed that East had >considered for longer than normal before passing. > At this level East doesn't need to think whether he'd Stayman or not, he *knows* whether he Staymans with this hand. I would have adjusted to 2S. Law 73F2 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 May 20 08:22:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:22:44 +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 IAA07111 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 08:22:35 +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 10kEjE-000Lbv-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 19 May 1999 22:22:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 23:07:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: <374032E1.CBC251AD@emtex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <374032E1.CBC251AD@emtex.com>, Trevor Walker writes >I can see no reason to take any 'action against NS'. North, knowing >that his partner must pass for one round(UI), presumably attempted >to prevent the opponents from finding a heart contract. South, knowing >that North knew he had to pass(UI), took a chance but correctly >dissembled what was happening. Why is any action indicated against NS? > > Trevor > > >Martin_Hunter/psb@peelsb.com wrote: >> >> Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass out of >turn. >> North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the thoughts on this? To make >it >> worse, NS are an experienced pair, and EW intermediate players. >> The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S >> P,P,P >> South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. >> It turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken against >NS? >> Thanks, Martin I'd shrug my shoulders and say "next hand". South couldn't have known at the time of the infraction that damage was likely. North is entitled to do what he likes under 72A5. South can work out when it gets back to him that pard doesn't have a 5-6 (since the oppo have 8 spades). Routine pass. 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 May 20 11:45:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 11:45:45 +1000 Received: from nbrmr1001.ac.com (NBRMR1001.ac.com [170.252.248.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA07904 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 11:45:36 +1000 From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from emehm1101.ac.com ([170.252.192.148]) by nbrmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA16023 for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 20:43:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 86256777.0009C5F8 ; Wed, 19 May 1999 20:46:45 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANDERSEN CONSULTING To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <86256777.0009C451.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 03:43:49 +0100 Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan wrote: >I find it is always a good idea to closely examine the actions of the partner of the psycher. When the psyche is fielded (as I believe it was in this case) before it is at all possible to "read" it, action MUST be taken against the psyching pair.< Even if the likelihood for a succesful psyche became greater, I still don't see reason for action. By the penalty imposed for bid out of turn, N/S has a disadvantage - with or without psyche and I see no wrong in trying to handle an awkward situation in the best possible manner - nobody could force North to open an Acol 2C, for example. You surely cannot force North to "forget" that his partner is obliged to pass. There is quite a difference between laws and your personal feel what is just or not. Christian From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 17:00:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA09603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 17:00:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA09598 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 17:00:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA23227 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 17:00:14 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990520170100.0098e800@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:01:00 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: ADMINISTRIVIA: Another test Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry 'bout this folks.... Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC | Ph: +61 2 62798810 email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 19:04:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA09853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 19:04:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA09848 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 19:04:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually Isis137.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 20 May 1999 11:03:17 +0200 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 20 May 1999 11:05:46 +0200 Message-ID: <01BEA2B0.B6319880.bley@uni-duesseldorf.de> From: bley To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: New question: Where is the claim? Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:04:35 +0200 Organization: ... X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-Mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 26 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I?m sorry that I cannot contribute more to this list with this case. I was not involved and heard about the case only during the banquet. I was a TD there for the pairs and was quite tired when I heard the case, so it may be that I forgot important points. But sure enough take the case as it is. By the way the Kaplan case seems vers similar to me. Perhaps the easiest way to solve the problem is indeed to see the case as a claim indeed. L68A sentence 1 supports this view taken literally ("any") even if I have doubts if the lawmakers intended this. The advantage with this is, that there are no possible routes by taking IMO unethically approaches to fulfill contracts. On the other hand there is L68A sentence 2. The player wanted to curtail the play and obviously ("demonstrably" what ever this means ;-) didnt intend to claim (so to say: he didnt want to be a victim of claiming rules). I think this is a reasonable assumption because he showed his hands not to both opps but only to one. Last question here: What would have happened it the player would have said: "I don?want to claim, but if the D are 3-2 I will be solid" Var.: And showing his hand to one opp Var2: And showing his hand to both opps. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 20:03:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:03:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09932 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:02:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-80.uunet.be [194.7.9.80]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07252 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 12:02:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3743D77D.8F8ADADF@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:35:57 +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 lead from "wrong" hand References: <199905191628.MAA29522@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 > > Final conclusion : if west chooses to pass again, and is > > able to lead exactly the same card as he originally did, the > > board can be played with some sense of normality. > > Although the above is theoretically possible, I'm not at all sure this > is a reasonable outcome. Nevertheless, I don't see any obvious way to > avoid it. > > > Otherwise, 40/60 is the normal result. > > Yes, much as I dislike artificial scores, this seems to be where we > end up. > > Is there any protection if NS have bid a spectacularly good contract > that the rest of the field won't find? L12C1 seems to leave room > to award them more than 60% (and the OS less). Should that be > applied? What I'd like to do is give them no less than the score > that would have been assigned if we had used L12C2 at the point of > the opening lead, but I'm not sure that's legal. I understand why you think there should be, but don't forget that it is entirely possible that NS got to their good contract because West, holding the wrong cards, did not pre-empt. I don't think we need to check this, and simply award 60%. IMO the 'minimum' of L12C2 refers to the upward correction on session percentage, nothing else. One for Grattan's notebook : is the above sentence true ? Should it not be made more explicit ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 20:02:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:02:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09928 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:02:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-80.uunet.be [194.7.9.80]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07193 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 12:02:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3743D6E0.441DE388@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:33:20 +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: a lead from "wrong" hand References: <3.0.16.19990518201040.3aff5974@pop3.iag.net> <37429073.EE43CFEB@village.uunet.be> <374ae01e.3902341@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Wed, 19 May 1999 12:20:35 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > > >West has made a number of calls, all passes, with a hand not > >belonging to the board being played. > >West has made an opening lead with this hand. > > > >L17D : all West's calls are canceled. > > I doubt that. L17D concerns itself only with "a call", singular, and > with the question of whether or not LHO has called. > Well, West's first call is canceled (L17D), West's second call is canceled (L17D), ... need I go on ? Only if North has made the final bid, then West's last pass is canceled, doe the second part of L17D not apply. > L17D does not cover the situation where the offender's partner has > also called (as he has, perhaps several times, here). It seems > meaningless to allow the auction to be repeated when W knows that E > passes throughout. > well, since he is facing an Av- whenever he changes one call that North has already talked over, whatever his partner does is of no importance. > So it seems to me that the spirit of L17D extended to the case where > partner has called must be that an artificial assigned score should be > assigned immediately. > I don't think so. I believe he is allowed to take his new hand and make exactly the same call with it. However, it has become UI to his partner that his calls are meaningless. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 20:03:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:03:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09937 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:02:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-80.uunet.be [194.7.9.80]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07263 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 12:02:41 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3743D9AA.8C43F370@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:45:14 +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: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <3.0.32.19990519100520.009e2850@acsys.anu.edu.au> <37428BE4.4149D7FE@village.uunet.be> <3744d7ad.1740592@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >It's only true if presumed declarer has seen cards from > >presumed dummy. He must then accept the lead out of turn. > > And even then, RHO is not allowed to lead out of turn. If he does it > by accident, then it is correct that the lead out of turn must be > accepted, but if he does it deliberately, he is in serious breach of > L72B2. How right you are, Jesper, I had forgotten about that. There is an analogous case, which I often use. Declarer leads, my partner thinks, and dummy plays (either because declarer tells him to, or out of his own) his singleton. I often play my card (prematurely) to help partner. L57C says this is without penalty. I was assuming the same was true for the opening lead out of turn, when declarer has seen dummy's cards. But indeed there is a difference. The lead out of turn is an infraction in itself, subject to penalty (declarer can still opt who shall play the hand, even if he can no longer refuse the lead out of turn), and as Jesper correctly points out, L72B2 prohibits this. There is IMO, no such infraction in the premature play to a trick. Or am I wrong ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 20:03:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA09955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:03:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA09944 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 20:02:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-80.uunet.be [194.7.9.80]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA07269 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 12:02:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3743DAAD.EFCA32C7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:49:33 +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: Enforced passes (theory) was: OPENING PASS ... References: <199905192012.NAA27568@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jim Boyce wrote: > > > But here a few observations: > a) If West and North would both normally open, you are probably ahead > of the field if you accept the POOT and bid normally. > b) If North and South are both normally passing, it often doesn't > really matter which of East and West bids first. > c) If the par result of the hand is North-South positive, expecially > if it is a big positive, you probably want North to guess. > conclusion : if West has an opening bid, he should accept the POOT. Since this is not an agreement with partner, it is alright for us to tell even ACBL members. > > 6) I haven't thought about the situation where South's OPOOT is strong > and/or forcing. I suspect that it is less often right to accept the > POOT. Is this covered by a different section of the LAWS? > Yes : L30C says that on a forcing pass, L31 applies ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 21:27:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 21:27:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA10171 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 21:26:53 +1000 (EST) 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, 20 May 1999 12:25:53 +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 MAA09986 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 12:25:11 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: OPENING Pass Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:22:19 +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 Roger Pewick wrote: > It is distasteful to me that a player would undertake an enterprise that was > available only because his side has committed an infraction. It matters not > whether such an enterprise is likely to succeed or end in disaster. As others have asked, why does this apply to a psyche, but not to more normal "enterprises", such as bidding a speculative 3NT? > A > deliberate psyche is an attempt to deceive. A psyche protected by the > infraction of the psycher's side has decidedly less risk than one where > partner has no inkling and is not barred. I do not believe that a protected > violation of one's agreements is justifiable spoils of war. I can understand the feeling that this kind of tactic *shouldn't* be allowed. I would not object to a law prohibiting psyching in these situations. But there isn't one, so I don't see any grounds for penalizing or regarding as unethical a player who has a different opinion on the fairness of this tactic. > L72A5 gives the player 'permission' to make the call he thinks best. It > does not 'protect' him from adjustment according to L75B1 which applies in > this instance because the OS gained the advantage of a protected psych, that > was not available without the infraction, which they took advantage of. [I assume L75B1 should be L72B1.] It seems to me that there are just two reasons that one might adjust: (a) If the passer-out-of-turn "could have known" that his pass "would be likely to damage" the opposition (L72B1). Frankly, I am amazed that so many (i.e., more than none) of those posting think that he could have known. I can't imagine a hand where I would think, before anybody had bid, "Gosh, with this hand I'd be more likely to get a good result if I passed out of turn and silenced myself for the first round of the auction than if I allowed partner to bid his hand normally." (b) If the UI given by the pass out of turn demonstrably suggested the psyche over other logical alternatives. This may well be the case; I could be persuaded either way. But in either case, the fact that there's a *psyche* involved seems a red herring. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 22:16:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:16:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10305 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:16:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.147.218]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990520121819.KGPH7869945.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 00:18:19 +1200 Message-ID: <380D9D5F.DF2BAA0B@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:45:51 +1300 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OPENING P References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > Indeed I'd accept that one *could know* that a POOT on this might cause > damage. > -- I agree but Law 72B1 requires "could have known" *and* "would be likely" not might. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 22:16:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:16:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10300 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:16:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.147.218]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990520121813.KGOX7869945.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 00:18:13 +1200 Message-ID: <380D9C70.432BB6E6@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:41:53 +1300 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OPENING P References: <199905191843.OAA00712@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > I do agree with the L16C2 adjustment if opener psyches, or makes an > off-shape preempt (say, with four spades on the side); these actions are > made more attractive by the knoledge that partner doesn't have an > opening bid. Who cares about "more attractive" the laws (L16C2) say, IMO, the much stronger phrase "demonstably have been suggested" and that the call is a "logical alternative". Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 20 22:37:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA10369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:37:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA10364 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:37:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip30.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.30]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990520123726.PTHO28514.fep1@ip30.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 14:37:26 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New question: Where is the claim? Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:37:28 GMT Message-ID: <3751fb38.3270793@post.tele.dk> References: <01BEA2B0.B6319880.bley@uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <01BEA2B0.B6319880.bley@uni-duesseldorf.de> 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 Thu, 20 May 1999 11:04:35 +0200 skrev bley: >What would have happened it the player would have said: >"I don?want to claim, but if the D are 3-2 I will be solid" Either "if the D are 3-2 I will be solid" is a claim or it's not. It makes no difference what the person in question has said before. I think (as before) that it's a claim. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 00:13:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 00:13:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from ns1.tudelft.nl (ns1.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11751 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 00:12:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (mailhost.tudelft.nl) by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (PMDF V5.1-12 #D3521) with ESMTP id <0FC1000HSBGJAS@mailhost2.tudelft.nl> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 May 1999 16:12:19 +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 QAA00376 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 16:12:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from angad.tn.tudelft.nl by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl with SMTP (16.6/15.6) id AA12581; Thu, 20 May 1999 16:11:41 +0200 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:06:49 +0200 From: Evert Angad-Gaur Subject: unsubscibe To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <374416F9.41A9C977@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- S.E.Angad-Gaur, tel.: 015-2786150 email:evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl fax.: 015-2781694 From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 01:31:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 01:31:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA13093 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 01:31:28 +1000 (EST) 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 10kUmw-000PDO-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 May 1999 15:31:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:27:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: OPENING P In-Reply-To: <380D9D5F.DF2BAA0B@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <380D9D5F.DF2BAA0B@xtra.co.nz>, wayne writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> Indeed I'd accept that one *could know* that a POOT on this might cause >> damage. >> -- I'm following the DWS line here, in the sense that he has partially convinced me about the Rottweiller's "Psyche with pard silenced". Silencing oneself when holding a yarboroUGH is different from doing so with a 10 count. In the former case I can reasonably expect "and could have known" that I "damn nigh certain" let alone "would be likely" cause damage. in the second case of the 10-count no such assumptions can be made as it is not clear whose hand it is. > >I agree but Law 72B1 requires "could have known" *and* "would be likely" >not might. ok, 'might' is sloppy, but the concept is the relevant point. -- 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 May 21 02:26:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 02:26:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA13399 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 02:26:25 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA26892 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 12:26:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 12:26:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905201626.MAA00885@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (john@probst.demon.co.uk) Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MadDog writes: >>> Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass >>> out of turn. North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the >>> thoughts on this? To make it worse, NS are an experienced pair, and >>> EW intermediate players. >>> The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S >>> P,P,P >>> South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. It >>> turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken >>> against >>> NS? >>> Thanks, Martin > I'd shrug my shoulders and say "next hand". > South couldn't have known at the time of the infraction that damage was > likely. North is entitled to do what he likes under 72A5. Leaving aside the point of whether North can psyche: > South can work out when it gets back to him that pard doesn't have a 5-6 > (since the oppo have 8 spades). Routine pass. Cheers john WHat does South think North holds? Presumably, South will assume that North has a real opening bid with hearts, in which case 3H should be better than 2S since either N-S have nine hearts or E-W have nine spades. And game isn't ruled out either; that spade void could be very valuable, as North is likely to have about four spades. I would expect South to bid at least 3H; passing here appears to be a fielded psyche. -- 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 May 21 02:58:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA13560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 02:58:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA13555 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 02:57:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from p93s05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.148] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10kW80-00054I-00; Thu, 20 May 1999 17:57:05 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01bea2e1$800b0620$94a593c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:53:02 +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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >There is quite a difference between laws and your personal feel what is just or >not. > ++++ At the risk of repeating it once too often, the mention of 72B1 in the relevant Law is for a considered purpose. Nothing to do with "personal feel". ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 03:08:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 03:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13580 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 03:08:27 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id MAA56658 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 May 1999 12:08:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GZ4W007 Thu, 20 May 99 12:05:02 Message-ID: <9905201205.0GZ4W00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 20 May 99 12:05:02 Subject: OPENING PASS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Roger Pewick wrote: B>> It is distasteful to me that a player would undertake an enterprise B>that was > available only because his side has committed an infraction. B>It matters not > whether such an enterprise is likely to succeed or B>end in disaster. B>As others have asked, why does this apply to a psyche, but not to more B>normal "enterprises", such as bidding a speculative 3NT? L72B1 says .... awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. In such an instance, the damage is that the OS gained the use of a protected psych that they availed themselves of. The protected psyche was not available except because of the infraction. Is it possible to concur that when a player with a barred partner undertakes a 'normal enterprise' such as bidding 3N that it is for the purpose not to deceive but to hopefully make either because his side has the material needed or because of some fortuitous play? On the other hand a protected psyche is not a 'normal enterprise'. It is a deception upon the opponents but not upon partner because partner is restricted in his actions. As such it is an illegal deception.. B>> A B>> deliberate psyche is an attempt to deceive. A psyche protected by the B>> infraction of the psycher's side has decidedly less risk than one B>where > partner has no inkling and is not barred. I do not believe B>that a protected > violation of one's agreements is justifiable spoils B>of war. B>I can understand the feeling that this kind of tactic *shouldn't* be B>allowed. I would not object to a law prohibiting psyching in these B>situations. But there isn't one, so I don't see any grounds for B>penalizing or regarding as unethical a player who has a different B>opinion on the fairness of this tactic. I think that the law does prohibit protected psyches in this situation, but a large number of directors do not interpret it that way. I think your case may be strong that because of the wording of L72A5 the player is not to be penalized but I have not talked of penalties but of adjustments. imo, a PP should be asessed, but the law should state so in L72A5 to avoid giving the table conflicting messages about what is allowed and what is not. B>> L72A5 gives the player 'permission' to make the call he thinks best. B>It > does not 'protect' him from adjustment according to L75B1 which B>applies in > this instance because the OS gained the advantage of a B>protected psych, that > was not available without the infraction, which B>they took advantage of. B>[I assume L75B1 should be L72B1.] It seems to me that there are just B>two reasons that one might adjust: B>(a) If the passer-out-of-turn "could have known" that his pass "would be B>likely to damage" the opposition (L72B1). Frankly, I am amazed that so B>many (i.e., more than none) of those posting think that he could have B>known. I can't imagine a hand where I would think, before anybody had B>bid, "Gosh, with this hand I'd be more likely to get a good result B>if I passed out of turn and silenced myself for the first round of the B>auction than if I allowed partner to bid his hand normally." When an irregularity creates a situation where the side has the opportunity to take an action [different from the pair's agreements] that before was unprotected but becomes protected, and that opportunity is availed upon, is this not damage to the other side? Such actions are an advantage gained because of the irregularity. The situation being discussed here being the protected psyche. It seems that general bridge knowledge is that an irregularity that can result in an enforced pass can create such a situation so therefore, the offender could have known that the situation may come to pass at the time of the irregularity. It is a red herring to claim that he could not know that his partner would avail themselves of the opportunity to make a protected psyche. B>(b) If the UI given by the pass out of turn demonstrably suggested the B>psyche over other logical alternatives. This may well be the case; I B>could be persuaded either way. Why be persuaded either way rather than one way? I realize that it appears that it is a stretch that "(so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience)." -Law73D, but consider such a scenario: A player is in such a hurry to pass that they do not wait for their turn. I would consider this to be UI, the likely meaning being that they have little in the way of honors and as such are much more likely to have a hand that would not be inclined to respond. Conversely, this makes the likelihood that the opponents have something going their way, and as such, a psychological bid is likely to derail them. It does seem that UI is a concealed partnership understanding, even if it is not a conscious one.. B>But in either case, the fact that there's a *psyche* involved seems a B>red herring. I do not believe so. I can think of a psyche in that situation that would not be protected. for instance, having a typical opener and passing [in tempo]. B>--------------------------------------------- B>Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk B>Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 B>http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr B>--------------------------------------------- B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 03:44:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA13677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 03:44:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA13672 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 03:44:38 +1000 (EST) 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 NAA16476 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 13:44:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA00433 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 May 1999 13:44:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 13:44:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905201744.NAA00433@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OPENING PASS X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > On the other hand a protected > psyche is not a 'normal enterprise'. It is a deception upon the opponents > but not upon partner because partner is restricted in his actions. As such > it is an illegal deception.. Just as it is illegal for declarer to false card. We all know how improper that is. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 04:55:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA13948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 04:55:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA13943 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 04:55:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990520185503.SIQX14950.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 11:55:03 -0700 Message-ID: <37445BAE.E633A05D@home.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:59:58 -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: OPENING PASS References: <9905201205.0GZ4W00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I still think this discussion has gotten sidetracked. Just use L16C2 as per which it is UI that pard has less than an opening. This UI makes a psyche more attractive and thus disallowed. TD/AC adjusts the score as per L12C2. This way "justice is served" for EW without using contrived machinations based on, at best, semi-relevant laws. If *in addition* the TD/AC finds South's and/or North's actions (or inaction) to be improper fielding, just handle that *completely seperately* as per the relevant guidelines of the SO where it happens. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 07:50:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA14473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 07:50:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA14468 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 07:50:27 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA23798 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 14:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010001bea30a$c1656240$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <86256777.0009C451.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:47:41 -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: > Alan wrote: > >I find it is always a good idea to closely examine the actions of the partner > of the psycher. When the psyche is fielded (as I believe it was in this case) > before it is at all possible to "read" it, action MUST be taken against the > psyching pair.< > > Even if the likelihood for a succesful psyche became greater, I still don't see > reason for action. By the penalty imposed for bid out of turn, N/S has a > disadvantage - with or without psyche and I see no wrong in trying to handle an > awkward situation in the best possible manner - nobody could force North to open > an Acol 2C, for example. You surely cannot force North to "forget" that his > partner is obliged to pass. But he is forced to "forget" (loosely speaking) that his partner lacks the strength for an opening bid (L16C2). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 08:00:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 08:00:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14506 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 08:00:33 +1000 (EST) 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 PAA27021 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 15:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010e01bea30c$2a9fbfc0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.32.19990519100520.009e2850@acsys.anu.edu.au> <37428BE4.4149D7FE@village.uunet.be> <3744d7ad.1740592@post12.tele.dk> <3743D9AA.8C43F370@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:53:47 -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: Herman De Wael > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > >It's only true if presumed declarer has seen cards from > > >presumed dummy. He must then accept the lead out of turn. > > > > And even then, RHO is not allowed to lead out of turn. If he does it > > by accident, then it is correct that the lead out of turn must be > > accepted, but if he does it deliberately, he is in serious breach of > > L72B2. > > How right you are, Jesper, I had forgotten about that. > > There is an analogous case, which I often use. > > Declarer leads, my partner thinks, and dummy plays (either > because declarer tells him to, or out of his own) his > singleton. > I often play my card (prematurely) to help partner. > L57C says this is without penalty. > I'll let Terence Reese (*Bridge Players Dictionary*, under Ethics) respond to that: "It is unethical to take an advantage from an irregularity that carries no penalty. For example, if declarer plays a card from dummy before the left-hand opponent has played, there is no penalty if fourth hand plays out of turn, but he should not do so deliberately." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 08:00:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA14518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 08:00:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14513 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 08:00:40 +1000 (EST) 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 PAA27030; Thu, 20 May 1999 15:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010f01bea30c$2b79f320$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Rickard, Jeremy" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: OPENING Pass Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 15:00:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Jeremy Rickard > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > It is distasteful to me that a player would undertake an enterprise that was > > available only because his side has committed an infraction. It matters not > > whether such an enterprise is likely to succeed or end in disaster. > > As others have asked, why does this apply to a psyche, but not to more > normal "enterprises", such as bidding a speculative 3NT? Because the psych is likely based on the UI obtained from partner's withdrawn call, whereas a speculative 3NT is based only on the AI that partner is barred. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 09:12:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA14732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 09:12:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14727 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 09:11:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from p30s06a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.134.49] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10kbyX-0005Ph-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 May 1999 00:11:42 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: OPENING PASS Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 00:15:28 +0100 Message-ID: <01bea316$a5dbb540$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: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, May 20, 1999 7:09 PM Subject: Re: OPENING PASS >> From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >Just as it is illegal for declarer to false card. We all know how >improper that is. Is it? Am I missing something? Please explain what you mean by this. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 10:01:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA14962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 10:01:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA14957 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 10:01:19 +1000 (EST) 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 RAA04257 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 17:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013b01bea31d$0a4314a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01bea316$a5dbb540$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: OPENING PASS Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:56:45 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 4:15 PM Subject: Re: OPENING PASS > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Date: Thursday, May 20, 1999 7:09 PM > Subject: Re: OPENING PASS > > > >> From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > > > > >Just as it is illegal for declarer to false card. We all know how > >improper that is. > > Is it? Am I missing something? Please explain what you mean by this. > Anne > You missed seeing the tongue in Steve's cheek. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 11:45:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA15172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 11:45:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA15167 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 11:45:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveies.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.220]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA23425 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 21:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990520214311.00731074@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 21:43:11 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: <199905201626.MAA00885@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:26 PM 5/20/99 -0400, David G wrote: >WHat does South think North holds? Presumably, South will assume that >North has a real opening bid with hearts, in which case 3H should be >better than 2S since either N-S have nine hearts or E-W have nine >spades. And game isn't ruled out either; that spade void could be very >valuable, as North is likely to have about four spades. > I don't know what North's 1-heart bid suggests about his hand, but any expectation that it should necessarily show the same thing opposite a barred partner as it would otherwise seems wholly out of whack. South knows that he is barred, he knows that North knows he is barred, and that North is fully entitled to make the best of a bad situation, whatever he has judged that to be. It might be (as it was, in fact) a psych. It might be (as some others have suggested) more along the lines of a lead-directing call, with perhaps substantially less than opening values. It could even be an honest bid. What he does know, if he respects his partner at any rate, is that North has had to flip a mental coin to arrive at the decision about how best to manage this problematic situation. Since he shouldn't rely on North to be bidding at all normally, South must flip the same type of coin. >I would expect South to bid at least 3H; passing here appears to be a >fielded psyche. > Define your terms here, please. If by "fielded psyche" you mean an inference drawn by South concerning the probability of a psych in this this situation, then I agree. But there is nothing illegal about this, so long as South's inference is based on general bridge knowledge or even some very general understanding about partner's aggressiveness and taste for adventure. It is only when South's guess is informed by concealed partnership agreement, including prior partnership experience _in similar situations_, that his fielding of the psych constitutes an illegality. On the facts given, it seems to me eminently reasonable for South to tread carefully in these waters, and ultimately to pass. Question them if you like, to try and determine if there really is a solid basis for a finding of CPU. But absent any additional damning evidence, South is off the hook. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 12:06:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA15262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 12:06:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15257 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 12:05:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveies.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.220]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA03647 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 22:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990520220348.0072a71c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:03:48 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: OPENING PASS In-Reply-To: <9905201205.0GZ4W00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 5/20/99, Roger wrote: >Is it possible to concur that when a player with a barred partner undertakes >a 'normal enterprise' such as bidding 3N that it is for the purpose not to >deceive but to hopefully make either because his side has the material >needed or because of some fortuitous play? On the other hand a protected >psyche is not a 'normal enterprise'. It is a deception upon the opponents >but not upon partner because partner is restricted in his actions. As such >it is an illegal deception.. > People toss around words like "normal" and "strange" with alarming frequency in this thread. There is _nothing_ normal about the bidding decisions faced by a player with a barred partner. Many bids in this setting are "strange", in the precise sense of carrying a radically different significance than they would opposite a cooperating partner. What on earth is wrong with seeking to deceive the opponents? It is, in general, a perfectly legitimate strategy. The evident distaste among so many folks for this kind of action in the given situation is perhaps a good argument for changing the Laws (more to follow), but not for ignoring the Laws and declaring something illegal which enjoys rather specific legal protection. >I think that the law does prohibit protected psyches in this situation, but >a large number of directors do not interpret it that way. And that would be which Law in particular? Not L40A, I trust: "A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." Nor L72A5: "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction. " Taken together, these make it completely clear that North's action is perfectly legal, so long as it has not been made more attractive by the knowledge of partner's sub-opening values. That is a possibly legitimate line of attack, but a fairly thin plank on which to stand, seized upon IMO by those who are outraged by North's action, whether or not it was influenced by UI. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 13:11:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:11:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15413 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:11:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-216-175.s175.tnt3.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.216.175]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA26123 for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 23:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ec01bea337$9d261500$afd87ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990520220348.0072a71c@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: OPENING PASS Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 23:11:22 -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: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Thursday, May 20, 1999 10:03 PM Subject: Re: OPENING PASS [snip] > Taken together, these make it completely clear that North's action is > perfectly legal, so long as it has not been made more attractive by the > knowledge of partner's sub-opening values. That is a possibly legitimate > line of attack, but a fairly thin plank on which to stand, seized upon IMO > by those who are outraged by North's action, whether or not it was > influenced by UI. > > Mike Dennis The problem is that we really don't know what the North action was. E/W played in 2S and were not damaged by the psych. S has a highly distributional hand that would make a rather nice minor suit dummy. E/W certainly showed no excitement during the auction, S has an 8 count, so where is the rest of the deck? Did E/W wind up with a good score because N/S missed a minor suit contract? I wouldn't get overly excited by the "fielding" argument if it turned out to be a N/S hand that sold out too early. Yes, L16C2 might come into play if N held garbage, but the auction and the result imply values in the N hand. Who knows what the LAs are? Without seeing the N hand, I wouldn't even try to guess. There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but IMO there was not enough information given in the original post to determine which, if any, actually applies. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 13:19:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:19:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15445 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:19:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.148.4]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990521031120.QVIW7869945.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 15:11:20 +1200 Message-ID: <3744B7D1.C437B07E@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:33:05 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OPENING P References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > I'm following the DWS line here, in the sense that he has partially > convinced me about the Rottweiller's "Psyche with pard silenced". > > Silencing oneself when holding a yarboroUGH is different from doing so > with a 10 count. In the former case I can reasonably expect "and could > have known" that I "damn nigh certain" let alone "would be likely" cause > damage. > > in the second case of the 10-count no such assumptions can be made as it > is not clear whose hand it is. > > > > >I agree but Law 72B1 requires "could have known" *and* "would be likely" > >not might. > > ok, 'might' is sloppy, but the concept is the relevant point. Ok the language is cleared up but I still don't agree with this concept and this is why when I have a yarborough other things being equal partner will hold a decent hand. In a fit of self-flagellation I just dealt myself 100 yarboroughs and then looked at what partner held (simulation you understand)- almost exactly half of the time partner held 14 or more hcp. This partner being ethical will play me for an average hand and not the complete yarborough that I actually hold and knowing that I am going to pass is going to bid too high most of the time. This will not most often not damage the opponents. And even when partner holds a weaker hand my enforced pass is unlikely to damage the opponents as that is the call that I will most likely make anyway. Even with the "Rottweiller's" yarborough this irregularity can only damage the opponent's if partner bids to an unlikely (in a normal auction) but successful contract or if partner finds an unusual (psychic or tactical) bid, knowing that I will pass (AI) that deflects the opponents' from there best scoring contract. I do not believe that the total of these 'advantages' is likely. Neither do I believe in normal circumstances that I could know at the time of the irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the opponents - it might, it might advantage them, or it may have no affect. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 13:19:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15447 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:19:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.148.4]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990521031128.QVJL7869945.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz>; Fri, 21 May 1999 15:11:28 +1200 Message-ID: <3744BBBA.2CA0E374@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:49:46 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Grabiner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: <199905201626.MAA00885@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > > WHat does South think North holds? Presumably, South will assume that > North has a real opening bid with hearts, in which case 3H should be Why should South think that North has a real opener. With a lot of real openers North would need to take a first round punt at what he considers the best game. In fact, IMO, to not do so would be basing his low level action on the UI that partner wanted to pass in first seat. And what is more everyone at the table knows that North's opening bids are highly distorted. > better than 2S since either N-S have nine hearts or E-W have nine > spades. And game isn't ruled out either; that spade void could be very > valuable, as North is likely to have about four spades. > > I would expect South to bid at least 3H; passing here appears to be a > fielded psyche. > I wouldn't even consider many otherwise sub-minimum 1H openings as a psyches. Just in the same way that if North has opened 3NT on AKx Kx AKJxx Qxx I would not consider this a psyche in spite of the fact that the hand does not match the announced agreement e.g. long running minor no outside card. Why is not a psyche? Because the law prescribed a penalty that forces North to choose a call on the first round based on the combined strength of his and his partner's hand but not taking into account that his partner necessarily held a weak hand. Therefore an opening 3NT on the above hand says on balance if you have your share of the outstanding points my best guess is that we could make 3NT. And a 1H opening says if you have your share of the outstanding points then the limit of our combined hands is the 1-level (or maybe a partscore). Because of this South should necessarily be conservative. And this not by partnership agreement but by general bridge knowledge available to everyone. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 13:20:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA15476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:20:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15457 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 13:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.148.4]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990521031140.QVKR7869945.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 15:11:40 +1200 Message-ID: <3744CB19.DBAE9E0E@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:55:21 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: OPENING PASS References: <9905201205.0GZ4W00@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: > L72B1 says .... awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the > offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. > > In such an instance, the damage is that the OS gained the use of a protected > psych that they availed themselves of. The protected psyche was not > available except because of the infraction. Maybe but we all know that a psyche protected or not does not necessarily damage the opponents e.g say in this situation I psyche 1H and the bidding proceeds P P(Forced) Dbl; all pass and I go for 1100 - how have the opponents been damaged? They have not unless they have a slam. > > Is it possible to concur that when a player with a barred partner undertakes > a 'normal enterprise' such as bidding 3N that it is for the purpose not to > deceive but to hopefully make either because his side has the material > needed or because of some fortuitous play? But the laws allow me in this situation to bid 3NT on a balance 20 count (or even a bit less) and also to bid 3NT on the solid running minor that I would have gambled when partner was not barred. This may confuse the opponents who may go wrong by making a speculative double with a moderate hand in the first case or both opponents passing out 3NT when they can make a game in the second case. If such a wide range is allowed at the level of 3NT why not at the level of 1H. To my mind xx AQxxx xxx xxx is a reasonable 1H opener with partner barred (to suggest a lead and we may even make 1H if partner has a moderate collection and a fit) as is x AJ10xxx KQx Jxx but in the second case I would be willing to compete some more if the auction develops favorably. Note both actions are not without risk - I may be left in a hopeless contract in the first case and miss game opposite xxxx Kxxx Ax Axx in the second. And while it wouldn't be my first choice I can't see anything that would prohibit a 1H opening on QJxxx xx Kxx Jxx. The test in law is How does the UI that partner passed suggest 1H over any other call? IMO it does not - maybe I'll try it one day. >On the other hand a protected > psyche is not a 'normal enterprise'. It is a deception upon the opponents > but not upon partner because partner is restricted in his actions. As such > it is an illegal deception.. L73E E. Deception 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). It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo and manner. Only hidden partnership understanding makes this type of deception illegal. But since partner must pass I need no partnership understanding and general bridge knowledge suggests my first round bids will be abnormal (speculative 3NT etc). > When an irregularity creates a situation where the side has the opportunity > to take an action [different from the pair's agreements] that before was > unprotected but becomes protected, and that opportunity is availed upon, is > this not damage to the other side? Not necessarily a psyche can still disadvantage ones own side. You even acknowledge this by saying the risk is reduced not eliminated. >Such actions are an advantage gained > because of the irregularity. And L72A5 sanctions for this very eventuality. > The situation being discussed here being the > protected psyche. It seems that general bridge knowledge is that an > irregularity that can result in an enforced pass can create such a > situation so therefore, the offender could have known that the situation may > come to pass at the time of the irregularity. But would it be likely. > It is a red herring to claim that he could not know that his partner would > avail themselves of the opportunity to make a protected psyche. There is a circular argument here that makes this illogical. You claim he could know that partner would/could psyche. But this claim is made when you are arguing that the psyche is illegal. That is: Lets suppose that the psyche is illegal as you claim then how could South have known that partner would be likely to make this illegal call. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 14:42:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 14:42:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15602 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 14:42:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990521044207.ZCTO14950.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Thu, 20 May 1999 21:42:07 -0700 Message-ID: <3744E545.18E203EC@home.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 21:47:02 -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: OPENING PASS References: <3.0.1.32.19990520220348.0072a71c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: > Nor L72A5: > > "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders > to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they > thereby appear to profit through their own infraction. " Strange that you so conveniently forget the very relevant part that I marked above, since it is included in a law you quote yourself. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 14:53:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA15638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 14:53:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15633 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 14:53:43 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id XAA82588 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 May 1999 23:53:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0XAQI027 Thu, 20 May 99 23:42:10 Message-ID: <9905202342.0XAQI02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 20 May 99 23:42:10 Subject: OPENING P To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike you have made me curious. [a] interesting words in 72A5- ...after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty... [b] part of the penalty from L30 is that L72B1 may apply. It seems that you are not finished paying that penalty until the hand is over. Earlier I said I was convinced that N was permitted to make any call they saw fit even though L72B1 might provide for an adjustment. I am now convinced otherwise because 72A5 subjects the OS actions to the restrictions of 16C2. I will make a note to think about if a protected psyche can be demonstrably suggested over a 'non psyche', I have an inkling that it might be difficult. Roger Pewick B>At 12:05 PM 5/20/99, Roger wrote: B>>Is it possible to concur that when a player with a barred partner B>undertakes >a 'normal enterprise' such as bidding 3N that it is for the B>purpose not to >deceive but to hopefully make either because his side B>has the material >needed or because of some fortuitous play? On the B>other hand a protected >psyche is not a 'normal enterprise'. It is a B>deception upon the opponents >but not upon partner because partner is B>restricted in his actions. As such >it is an illegal deception.. B>> B>People toss around words like "normal" and "strange" with alarming B>frequency in this thread. There is _nothing_ normal about the bidding B>decisions faced by a player with a barred partner. Many bids in this B>setting are "strange", in the precise sense of carrying a radically B>different significance than they would opposite a cooperating partner. B>What on earth is wrong with seeking to deceive the opponents? It is, in B>general, a perfectly legitimate strategy. The evident distaste among so B>many folks for this kind of action in the given situation is perhaps a B>good argument for changing the Laws (more to follow), but not for B>ignoring the Laws and declaring something illegal which enjoys rather B>specific legal protection. B>>I think that the law does prohibit protected psyches in this situation, B>but >a large number of directors do not interpret it that way. B>And that would be which Law in particular? Not L40A, I trust: B>"A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally B>misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs B>from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), B>without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based B>on a partnership understanding." B>Nor L72A5: B>"Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed B>penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the B>offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even B>though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction. " B>Taken together, these make it completely clear that North's action is B>perfectly legal, so long as it has not been made more attractive by the B>knowledge of partner's sub-opening values. That is a possibly legitimate B>line of attack, but a fairly thin plank on which to stand, seized upon B>IMO by those who are outraged by North's action, whether or not it was B>influenced by UI. B>Mike Dennis B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 18:52:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA15893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 18:52:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA15888 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 18:52:10 +1000 (EST) 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, 21 May 1999 09:51:03 +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 JAA21910 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 09:50:43 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: OPENING Pass In-Reply-To: <010f01bea30c$2b79f320$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:47:50 +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 Marvin L. French wrote: > From: Jeremy Rickard > > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > > It is distasteful to me that a player would undertake an > enterprise that was > > > available only because his side has committed an infraction. It > matters not > > > whether such an enterprise is likely to succeed or end in > disaster. > > > > As others have asked, why does this apply to a psyche, but not to > more > > normal "enterprises", such as bidding a speculative 3NT? > > Because the psych is likely based on the UI obtained from partner's > withdrawn call, whereas a speculative 3NT is based only on the AI that > partner is barred. I was addressing Roger's general point rather than the particular case being discussed: I think I said later in my posting that I could accept the UI argument. Incidentally, I trust we would all be as ready to make a L16 adjustment if a player *failed* to bid a speculative 3NT with a balanced 18-count when his partner was barred from bidding because of an opening pass out of turn. Jeremy. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 23:18:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 23:18:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16584 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 23:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from p01s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.2] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10kpBm-0001O1-00; Fri, 21 May 1999 14:18:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000301bea38c$16b40cc0$028393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: OPENING PASS Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:12:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: blml Date: 21 May 1999 06:09 Subject: Re: OPENING PASS >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >> Nor L72A5: >> >> "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders >> to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they >> thereby appear to profit through their own infraction. " > >Strange that you so conveniently forget the very relevant part that I >marked above, since it is included in a law you quote yourself. ++++ And was deliberately inserted to that end. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 23:22:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 23:22:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16601 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 23:22:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5es14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.95] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10kpFV-0005FQ-00; Fri, 21 May 1999 14:22:05 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bea38c$a01a9c40$5f8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jan Kamras" , "blml" Subject: Re: OPENING PASS Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:19:10 +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: 21 May 1999 06:09 Subject: Re: OPENING PASS >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >> Nor L72A5: >> >> "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders >> to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they >> thereby appear to profit through their own infraction. " > >Strange that you so conveniently forget the very relevant part that I >marked above, since it is included in a law you quote yourself. ++++ And was deliberately inserted to that end. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 21 23:44:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA16654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 May 1999 23:44:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA16649 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 23:44:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3 [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.8/8.8.8/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id JAA29643 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 09:44:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA25515; Fri, 21 May 1999 09:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905211344.JAA25515@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Eric Landau wrote: > >> >> >++++ You do not think North could find it an advantage to know >> >before he calls that his partner has a worthless hand and, on the >first round >> >at least, will be passing? There is no way he can use that >information? That >> >South could not imagine it, and realize that it could be likely to >damage >> >opponents? Oh, Sir, how pure the air of NZ must be! ~ Grattan ~ >++++ >> >> Surely a pass by [a player who thinks he is] the dealer shows >neither a >> worthless hand nor a hand that would pass in third seat regardless >of >> partner's first call. Indeed, a first seat pass by most players >doesn't >> even deny a hand that would open after P-P-?. Sure, if it did show >a >> complete bust then the psych would become much more attractive and >subject >> to redress. But it doesn't, and if partner guesses that his barred >partner >> "has a worthless hand [that], on the first round at least, [would] >be >> passing" and handles his own hand accordingly, he will most often be >wrong, >> and should not be punished on the occasions when he happens to be >right. >> >> >But the psych is much less dangerous when partner is known not to have >opening bid strength. The decision to psych was likely to have been >based on the UI of the withdrawn pass, hence was illegal per L16C2. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > On a more practical level: if a player POOT before anyone has called, and the director is called, are we to instruct the partner of the POOT(er) that L16C2 applies, perhaps especially in regard to destructive calles? This would seem to nip most problems in the bud. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 00:23:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA18980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 00:23:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA18975 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 00:23:21 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id JAA90873 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 21 May 1999 09:23:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0D6BM00I Fri, 21 May 99 09:22:43 Message-ID: <9905210922.0D6BM00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 21 May 99 09:22:43 Subject: OPENING PASS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (blml) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Marvin L. French wrote: B>> From: Jeremy Rickard B>> B>> > Roger Pewick wrote: B>> > B>. > It is distasteful to me that a player would undertake an B>> enterprise that was B>. > available only because his side has committed an infraction. It B>> matters not B>. > whether such an enterprise is likely to succeed or end in B>> disaster. B>> > B>> > As others have asked, why does this apply to a psyche, but not to B>> more B>> > normal "enterprises", such as bidding a speculative 3NT? B>> B>> Because the psych is likely based on the UI obtained from partner's B>> withdrawn call, whereas a speculative 3NT is based only on the AI that B>> partner is barred. B>I was addressing Roger's general point rather than the particular B>case being discussed: I think I said later in my posting that I could B>accept the UI argument. B>Incidentally, I trust we would all be as ready to make a L16 B>adjustment if a player *failed* to bid a speculative 3NT with a B>balanced 18-count when his partner was barred from bidding B>because of an opening pass out of turn. B> Jeremy. I would never play a game with such a rule. Roger Pewick Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 06:20:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 06:20:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19869 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 06:20:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.146.154]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990521202219.WRJW7869945.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 08:22:19 +1200 Message-ID: <3745BE23.21B4F8DB@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 08:12:19 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Re: OPENING PASS References: <9905210922.0D6BM00@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>Incidentally, I trust we would all be as ready to make a L16 > B>adjustment if a player *failed* to bid a speculative 3NT with a > B>balanced 18-count when his partner was barred from bidding > B>because of an opening pass out of turn. > > B> Jeremy. > > I would never play a game with such a rule. This is Law. The logical alternatives to a player with a barred partner and holding a balanced 18 count are, IMO, 1NT or 3NT. Which of these is suggested by partners pass which happened to be OOT? Surely the conservative 1NT is suggested (even as is required demonstrably suggested) . Therefore the holder of the 18 count may not choose 1NT. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 06:53:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 06:53:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com (smtp5.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA19938 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 06:53:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh6h.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.209]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA27646 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 16:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990521165054.0072cbb4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 16:50:54 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: OPENING PASS In-Reply-To: <3744E545.18E203EC@home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990520220348.0072a71c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:47 PM 5/20/99 -0700, Jan wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: > >> Nor L72A5: >> >> "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders >> to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they >> thereby appear to profit through their own infraction. " > >Strange that you so conveniently forget the very relevant part that I >marked above, since it is included in a law you quote yourself. > No, I didn't forget it at all. It is just that I don't share your confidence that it applies in the case at hand. Is it, in general, more attractive to psych when partner holds less than opening values? Yes, at least marginally so, because one of the inherent risks of psyching is that partner will look at his goodish hand and go off the deep end. That risk is reduced when partner has less than opening values. But since the biggest danger of psyching is the consequence of action by partner, that risk is reduced or eliminated facing a partner who is barred _for whatever reason_. I assume we are in agreement that South can take into account the fact that partner is barred, so long as his action does not reflect the the additional UI of _why_ partner is barred (i.e., less than opening hand). That is, if all North knows is that his partner is barred, he is entitled as a matter of Law to base his action, including a psych, on that knowledge. So the real question is: Given that partner is barred from acting, how much _additional_ incentive to psych is provided by the UI that partner holds less than opening values? IMO the answer is: not much, and probably not enough to meet the "demonstrably suggested by" standard. You apparently have come to a different conclusion in regard to this last question. Fair enough; I think there are arguments on both sides. But my real concern is what I judge the readiness of some folks to seize on the possible UI implications as a stick with which to beat North, when their real objection is to what they see as an unsporting, risk-free psych, whether or not there is a solid L16 case. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 07:01:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 07:01:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com (smtp5.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA19981 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 07:01:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh6h.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.209]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29973 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 17:01:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990521165916.0071e660@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 16:59:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: OPENING Pass In-Reply-To: References: <010f01bea30c$2b79f320$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:47 AM 5/21/99 +0100, Jeremy wrote: >Incidentally, I trust we would all be as ready to make a L16 >adjustment if a player *failed* to bid a speculative 3NT with a >balanced 18-count when his partner was barred from bidding >because of an opening pass out of turn. Not I. A failure to make such a call would show poor bridge judgement, IMO, but nothing more. Does the fact that partner holds less than opening values "demonstrably suggest" bidding less than game in this situation? Not at all. The average hand holding less than an opening bid is still plenty good enough for a play for game opposite a balanced 18-count, in my experience. On second thought, I guess I would be "as ready to make a L16 adjustment" in this case, since I am reluctant to do so in the first place. :) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 09:02:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 09:02:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20229 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 09:02:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.00.03 201-229-104) with ESMTP id <19990521230227.IPKV14950.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 16:02:27 -0700 Message-ID: <3745E72A.EFA26F85@home.com> Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 16:07:22 -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: OPENING PASS References: <3.0.1.32.19990520220348.0072a71c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.19990521165054.0072cbb4@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote (re "subject L16C2" prefacing the law MSD relies on): > No, I didn't forget it at all. It is just that I don't share your > confidence that it applies in the case at hand. That the law *applies* I thought was unquestionable. North certainly has UI from pard's withdrawn call. On the question what this UI demonstrably suggests on the other hand, opinions may reasonably differ. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 12:22:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 12:22:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20547 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 12:22:36 +1000 (EST) 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 10l1Qg-0005T2-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 May 1999 02:22:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 03:27:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: <199905201626.MAA00885@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199905201626.MAA00885@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes >MadDog writes: > >>>> Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass >>>> out of turn. North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the >>>> thoughts on this? To make it worse, NS are an experienced pair, and >>>> EW intermediate players. > >>>> The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S >>>> P,P,P > >>>> South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. It >>>> turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken >>>> against >>>> NS? >>>> Thanks, Martin > >> I'd shrug my shoulders and say "next hand". > >> South couldn't have known at the time of the infraction that damage was >> likely. North is entitled to do what he likes under 72A5. > >Leaving aside the point of whether North can psyche: > >> South can work out when it gets back to him that pard doesn't have a 5-6 >> (since the oppo have 8 spades). Routine pass. Cheers john > >WHat does South think North holds? Presumably, South will assume that >North has a real opening bid with hearts, in which case 3H should be >better than 2S since either N-S have nine hearts or E-W have nine >spades. And game isn't ruled out either; that spade void could be very >valuable, as North is likely to have about four spades. > >I would expect South to bid at least 3H; passing here appears to be a >fielded psyche. > The point I'm making is that South can deduce from the auction that North has psyched, and thus he has not fielded it. We sometimes comment down at the YC "everyone except the L&E can see that North psyched". But even that aside he has no UI, and with a 3-card fit and the suits breaking badly it seems obvious to pass. I'm still ruling "Next 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 Sat May 22 12:22:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 12:22:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20546 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 12:22:36 +1000 (EST) 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 10l1Qg-000NBy-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 May 1999 02:22:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 03:29:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: <003c01bea2e1$800b0620$94a593c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <003c01bea2e1$800b0620$94a593c3@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"I have no other but a woman's reason: >I think him so, because I think him so." > - T.G. of V. >||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >|||||||||||||||||||| >-----Original Message----- >From: christian.farwig@ac.com >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> >>There is quite a difference between laws and your personal feel what is just >or >>not. >> >++++ At the risk of repeating it once too often, the >mention of 72B1 in the relevant Law is for a >considered purpose. Nothing to do with "personal >feel". ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > But I don't think 72B1 applies when you have a 10-count. I think it does when you hold xxx xxxx xxx xxx. 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 May 22 15:34:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 15:34:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20846 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 15:33:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA14059 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 May 1999 06:33:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 22 May 99 06:33 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: OPENING PASS 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: <37445BAE.E633A05D@home.com> Jan Kamras wrote: > > I still think this discussion has gotten sidetracked. Just use L16C2 as > per which it is UI that pard has less than an opening. This UI makes a > psyche more attractive and thus disallowed. TD/AC adjusts the score as > per L12C2. This way "justice is served" for EW without using contrived > machinations based on, at best, semi-relevant laws. The problem is that this is not an automatic progression. The knowledge that partner is barred (one round or entirely) suggests all sorts of strategies and bids that would not otherwise be considered. In some situations the hand may indeed be one where one would only psyche because one knows partner has less than opening values (I'm having a problem constructing such a hand because this is an unusual situation). On many other hands this knowledge does not demonstrably suggest anything. BTW (re Marv's point) I would regard benefitting from the psyche because partner has barred himself as an *indirect* benefit from the infraction whereas I would regard barring partner and then making a psyche as a *direct* benefit. I think most experienced rubber players know that when one opponent is barred the bids of the other opponent are not to be trusted. Question: Given that it is perceived as right to condone a POOT if one has opening values is it AI or UI (to POOTer and his Pard) that a non-condoner is likely to have less than opening values? > If *in addition* the TD/AC finds South's and/or North's actions (or > inaction) to be improper fielding, just handle that *completely > seperately* as per the relevant guidelines of the SO where it happens. I agree, but in the original case please make sure that NS knew South was only barred for one round rather than throughout. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 15:34:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 15:34:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20848 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 15:33:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id GAA14074 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 May 1999 06:33:16 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 22 May 99 06:33 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) 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: <010e01bea30c$2a9fbfc0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > There is an analogous case, which I often use. > > > > Declarer leads, my partner thinks, and dummy plays (either > > because declarer tells him to, or out of his own) his > > singleton. > > I often play my card (prematurely) to help partner. > > L57C says this is without penalty. > > > > I'll let Terence Reese (*Bridge Players Dictionary*, under Ethics) > respond to that: > > "It is unethical to take an advantage from an irregularity that > carries no penalty. For example, if declarer plays a card from dummy > before the left-hand opponent has played, there is no penalty if > fourth hand plays out of turn, but he should not do so deliberately." I disagree with TR. Declarer is supposed to wait for my partner to play, if he plays prematurely when I am in a position to make an informative play he has made a mistake which I feel entitled to punish just as I can sometimes punish a lead from the wrong hand. Dummy should learn not to play out of turn. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 16:52:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 16:52:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20965 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 16:52:23 +1000 (EST) 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 XAA24548 for ; Fri, 21 May 1999 23:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <028601bea41f$9be0e060$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 23:51:53 -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 West-Meads wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" A certain Belgian wrote: > > > > > > There is an analogous case, which I often use. > > > > > > Declarer leads, my partner thinks, and dummy plays (either > > > because declarer tells him to, or out of his own) his > > > singleton. > > > I often play my card (prematurely) to help partner. > > > L57C says this is without penalty. > > > > > > > I'll let Terence Reese (*Bridge Players Dictionary*, under Ethics) > > respond to that: > > > > "It is unethical to take an advantage from an irregularity that > > carries no penalty. For example, if declarer plays a card from dummy > > before the left-hand opponent has played, there is no penalty if > > fourth hand plays out of turn, but he should not do so deliberately." > > I disagree with TR. Declarer is supposed to wait for my partner to play, > if he plays prematurely when I am in a position to make an informative > play he has made a mistake which I feel entitled to punish just as I can > sometimes punish a lead from the wrong hand. Dummy should learn not to > play out of turn. > It seems odd to play out of turn in order to teach someone not to play out of turn. It's like hitting a child to teach it not to hit. Although there is no penalty for playing out of turn in this situation, it is an irregularity, per L57 L75B2: A player must not infringe a Law intentionally... Rubber bridge Laws: To infringe a law intentionally is a serious breach of ethics The lawmakers recognized that fourth hand might inadvertently play out of turn when declarer plays simultaneously from both hands, so they made clear that this irregularity carries no penalty (L57C). They did not say that one should feel free to deliberately play out of turn. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 21:21:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 21:21:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from isa.dknet.dk (root@isa.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21464 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 21:21:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from idefix (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by isa.dknet.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01489 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 13:21:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905221121.NAA01489@isa.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 13:21:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Reply-to: jensogbodil@alesia.dk Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > I disagree with TR. Declarer is supposed to wait for my partner to play, > if he plays prematurely when I am in a position to make an informative > play he has made a mistake which I feel entitled to punish L10A tells us that the players are not entitled to punish irregularities. And, as Marvin tells us, players have no right to play out of turn deliberately, whatever the reason. > Dummy should learn not to > play out of turn. Of course. But we must leave the teaching to the director. /Jens -- Jens og Bodil, hjemme http://www.alesia.dk/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 22 23:02:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 May 1999 23:02:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from iron.singnet.com.sg (iron.singnet.com.sg [165.21.7.29]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21659 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 23:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (as001939.singnet.com.sg [165.21.177.169]) by iron.singnet.com.sg (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA05008 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 21:02:37 +0800 (SGT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990522210138.007d8790@pop.singnet.com.sg> X-Sender: yanhoon@pop.singnet.com.sg X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 21:01:38 +0800 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Derrick Subject: Director error(s)? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi to all Would appreciate your opinions on the following: Team of 4 S AKxx H K98xx D x C xxx S Jxxx S xxx H ---- H Txxxx D Txxxx D Kx C xxx3 C KQx S QT H AQJ D AQJ9x C AJT Contract: 6NT by S Lead: Sx Play: Spade lead won by Spade 10. Heart A, west drops C3 and DT. Playing director called. West says C3 discard meant. Director (playing) rules DT as minor penalty card, explains implications and leaves. Heart A, C3, Hx, Hx Diamond J, Dx ! Director! West claims confusion over director's prior explanation. Director rules play the DT, replace Dx in hand, no further penalty. Play continues: DJ, DT, Dx, DK Club K, Club A etc.... Result: 6NT-1 Subsequently S appeals director's decision claiming that with a subsequent D penalty card, he would play the Heart Q after winning the club A, thus ensuring 4 diamond tricks. How would you rule as AC member ? Thanks Derrick Heng PS: no dogs or cats :( From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 02:23:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 02:23:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24563 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 02:23:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip61.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.61]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990522162252.EXY28514.fep1@ip61.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 18:22:52 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: a lead from "wrong" hand Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 18:22:52 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3746c424.2661497@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.16.19990518201040.3aff5974@pop3.iag.net> <37429073.EE43CFEB@village.uunet.be> <374ae01e.3902341@post12.tele.dk> <3743D6E0.441DE388@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3743D6E0.441DE388@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA24564 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 20 May 1999 11:33:20 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> On Wed, 19 May 1999 12:20:35 +0200, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >> >West has made a number of calls, all passes, with a hand not >> >belonging to the board being played. >> >West has made an opening lead with this hand. >> > >> >L17D : all West's calls are canceled. >> >> I doubt that. L17D concerns itself only with "a call", singular, and >> with the question of whether or not LHO has called. > >Well, West's first call is canceled (L17D), West's second >call is canceled (L17D), ... need I go on ? Yes, it might seem so. And North (LHO) is required to repeat his call after a call that West has made.. But what about South and East and their calls? Is it not strange that L17D gives no hint as to whether their calls are cancelled and whether they have to repeat their calls? It seems ridiculous to me to require North to repeat his calls and not require South and East to do the same; yet L17D does not mention South and East at all. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the author of L17D had not imagined the situation where not only the offender (West), but also his partner has called. L17D is simply not intended for this situation. It is only intended for the situation where South and East have made no calls after West's first call; otherwise, it would have told us what to do with those calls. L17D does not authorize us to cancel East's and South's calls or to require them to repeat those calls. So I think that the only part of L17D we can use here is its general attitude. And its general attitude is clearly (to me) that when the situation is too complicated to be solved by letting the offender repeat his (one) call, then an artificial score is to be assigned. Since our situation is more complicated than the ones L17D consider, I would therefore assign an artificial score. >> L17D does not cover the situation where the offender's partner has >> also called (as he has, perhaps several times, here). It seems >> meaningless to allow the auction to be repeated when W knows that E >> passes throughout. >> > >well, since he is facing an Av- whenever he changes one call >that North has already talked over, whatever his partner >does is of no importance. No: knowing East's calls could be a great help to West in determining whether to repeat his calls (and get to play the board) or make a different call (and take 40%). Imagine that West's hand (the new, correct one) is one on which he would usually take part in the auction. Could the knowledge of the other three players' auction not tempt West to also pass, taking his chances for a good score, instead of calling to ensure his 40%? Anyway, I would like to suggest to the WBFLC that L17D lacks some indication as to what happens when offender's partner has called. (It also needs to be moved away from L17, of course - nobody looks for L17D in a law entitled "Duration of the auction".) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 03:53:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 03:53:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24785 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 03:53:16 +1000 (EST) 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 NAA28264 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 13:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 13:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905221753.NAA07731@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (john@probst.demon.co.uk) Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk MadDog writes: > In article <199905201626.MAA00885@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David > Grabiner writes >>>>> Here is the situation: North is dealer but South opens with a pass >>>>> out of turn. North now psyches a 1 Heart opener. What are the >>>>> thoughts on this? To make it worse, NS are an experienced pair, and >>>>> EW intermediate players. >> >>>>> The auction proceeded: 1H, 1S, P(forced), 2S >>>>> P,P,P >> >>>>> South's hand was -, Axx, Qxxxx, Qxxxx and didn't take a call. It >>>>> turned out that EW were not damaged, but what action can be taken >>>>> against >> WHat does South think North holds? Presumably, South will assume that >> North has a real opening bid with hearts, in which case 3H should be >> better than 2S since either N-S have nine hearts or E-W have nine >> spades. And game isn't ruled out either; that spade void could be very >> valuable, as North is likely to have about four spades. >> I would expect South to bid at least 3H; passing here appears to be a >> fielded psyche. > The point I'm making is that South can deduce from the auction that > North has psyched, and thus he has not fielded it. How does South deduce this? Here's a possible non-psyche layout. Q9xx KQJTx AKx x ATx KJxxxx xxx xx xx JTx KJxxx AT - Axx Qxxxx Qxxxx Here, E-W can make 2S, and N-S can make 5H. The fit here is unusually good, but there are many other examples on which N-S can make 4H, or can make 3H and buy the contract. > We sometimes comment down at the YC "everyone except the L&E can see > that North psyched". But even that aside he has no UI, and with a > 3-card fit and the suits breaking badly it seems obvious to pass. Is a fielded psyche not an automatic infraction in the UK? -- 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 May 23 04:26:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 04:26:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24866 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 04:26:46 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA28741 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 14:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 14:26:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905221826.OAA08479@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The recent discussion of North's psyche with South barred, and whether South fielded it by passing, leads to the natural question of what information makes it authorized to expect partner to psyche. Here's one example. E-W were trailing by 40 IMPs in the last 14 boards of a KO. East dealt at favorable vulerability. West held a balanced 19 count. W N E S 1C X P 1S P P 2C West has the AI that his team needs a swiug. There is no reason to believe that West has UI or that there is a CPU. However, it is possible, from West's point of view, that East opened a distributional 10 count, and South doubled on a 4-4-4-1 10 count. Under ACBL rules, it is not permitted to have an agreement to psyche. Would you rule an infraction if 2C was a good score? (It was moot at the table; East had psyched, but E-W could still make 3NT or 5C, and 1Sx would have gone for 500. As South, I reported the incident to the director.) -- 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 May 23 04:57:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 04:57:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24944 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 04:57:29 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA29202 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 14:57:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 14:57:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905221857.OAA08824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.19990522210138.007d8790@pop.singnet.com.sg> (message from Derrick on Sat, 22 May 1999 21:01:38 +0800) Subject: Re: Director error(s)? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Derrick writes: > Hi to all > Would appreciate your opinions on the following: > Team of 4 > S AKxx > H K98xx > D x > C xxx > S Jxxx S xxx > H ---- H Txxxx > D Txxxx D Kx > C xxx3 C KQx > S QT > H AQJ > D AQJ9x > C AJT > Contract: 6NT by S > Lead: Sx > Play: > Spade lead won by Spade 10. > Heart A, west drops C3 and DT. > Playing director called. West says C3 discard meant. Director (playing) > rules DT as minor penalty card, explains implications and leaves. This is an error; the DT should be a major penalty card. (A ten is an honor.) Assuming that the DT had properly been described as a major penalty card, South could have played another heart, forcing the discard of the DT and ensuring the contract. > Heart A, C3, Hx, Hx > Diamond J, Dx ! > Director! West claims confusion over director's prior explanation. Director > rules play the DT, replace Dx in hand, no further penalty. If the director gave an incorrect explanation to West, then West should be allowed to substitute the DT without penalty. L82C applies only if "no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally", and in this case, it is possible to restore the situation which would have occurred had the instructions been correct. > Play continues: DJ, DT, Dx, DK > Club K, Club A etc.... Result: 6NT-1 > Subsequently S appeals director's decision claiming that with a subsequent > D penalty card, he would play the Heart Q after winning the club A, thus > ensuring 4 diamond tricks. > How would you rule as AC member ? I would need to know what the director actually said to know whether the retraction at trick three should be permitted without penalty. However, the error at trick two is the one which needs to be corrected under L82C. If the DT had been a major penalty card, it is certainly likely that South would have taken advantage of it. I believe it is not likely that South would have failed to take advantage. (If South has the D8, cashing another heart is a 100% play for the contract, and even if he doesn't have it, forcing West to play the DT will result if four diamond tricks unless West has six diamonds.) Thus I rule 6NT making for both sides, and require the director to purchase a copy of the Law book to bring to the table for his next ruling. (Minor penalty cards seem to cause a lot of incorrect rulings that could easily be made out of the book.) -- 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 May 23 04:59:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA24968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 04:59:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA24963 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 04:59:01 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id NAA72075 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 May 1999 13:58:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0JKLV00K Sat, 22 May 99 13:55:56 Message-ID: <9905221355.0JKLV00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 22 May 99 13:55:56 Subject: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: De To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>Tim West-Meads wrote: B>> B>> From: "Marvin L. French" B> A certain Belgian wrote: B>. > B>. > There is an analogous case, which I often use. B>. > B>. > Declarer leads, my partner thinks, and dummy plays (either B>. > because declarer tells him to, or out of his own) his B>. > singleton. B>. > I often play my card (prematurely) to help partner. B>. > L57C says this is without penalty. B>. > B>> > B>> > I'll let Terence Reese (*Bridge Players Dictionary*, under Ethics) B>> > respond to that: B>> > B>> > "It is unethical to take an advantage from an irregularity that B>> > carries no penalty. For example, if declarer plays a card from B>dummy B>> > before the left-hand opponent has played, there is no penalty if B>> > fourth hand plays out of turn, but he should not do so B>deliberately." B>> B>> I disagree with TR. Declarer is supposed to wait for my partner to B>play, B>> if he plays prematurely when I am in a position to make an B>informative B>> play he has made a mistake which I feel entitled to punish just as I B>can B>> sometimes punish a lead from the wrong hand. Dummy should learn not B>to B>> play out of turn. B>> B>It seems odd to play out of turn in order to teach someone not to play B>out of turn. It's like hitting a child to teach it not to hit. B>Although there is no penalty for playing out of turn in this B>situation, it is an irregularity, per L57 I find it curious that I could not locate in the laws something similar to the following: During the play period, play continues clockwise until each trick is complete. A contestant's turn begins when their RHO has played a card and ends when they have played a card. Roger Pewick B>L75B2: A player must not infringe a Law intentionally... B>Rubber bridge Laws: To infringe a law intentionally is a serious B>breach of ethics B>The lawmakers recognized that fourth hand might inadvertently play out B>of turn when declarer plays simultaneously from both hands, so they B>made clear that this irregularity carries no penalty (L57C). They did B>not say that one should feel free to deliberately play out of turn. B>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com B> Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 05:21:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 05:21:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail2.rochester.rr.com (mta@mail2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25028 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 05:21:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mail2.rochester.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 15:24:21 -0400 X-Sender: ereppert@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 15:22:50 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Director error(s)? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oops. Forgot to send this to the list. Already sent it direct to Derrick. >Hi to all > >Would appreciate your opinions on the following: > >Team of 4 > > S AKxx > H K98xx > D x > C xxx > S Jxxx S xxx > H ---- H Txxxx > D Txxxx D Kx > C xxx3 C KQx > S QT > H AQJ > D AQJ9x > C AJT > >Contract: 6NT by S >Lead: Sx > >Play: > >Spade lead won by Spade 10. >Heart A, west drops C3 and DT. > >Playing director called. West says C3 discard meant. Director (playing) >rules DT as minor penalty card, explains implications and leaves. Whether the TD is playing or non-playing is irrelevant - except perhaps as it indicates he may have been, um, distracted. :-) Director's first mistake: Law 50B: Any card of honor rank becomes a major penalty card The DT is a major, not a minor, penalty card. >Heart A, C3, Hx, Hx > >Diamond J, Dx ! > >Director! West claims confusion over director's prior explanation. Director >rules play the DT, replace Dx in hand, no further penalty. West's confusion is irrelevant. Law 52 now applies. Declarer may accept or reject play of the Dx. In the former case, the DT remains a major penalty card. In the latter case, West must play the DT, and the Dx becomes a major penalty card. If the director feels that his prior explanation caused problems, he can award an adjusted score (Law 82C). And remind himself to RTFLB. :-) >Play continues: DJ, DT, Dx, DK > >Club K, Club A etc.... Result: 6NT-1 > >Subsequently S appeals director's decision claiming that with a subsequent >D penalty card, he would play the Heart Q after winning the club A, thus >ensuring 4 diamond tricks. >How would you rule as AC member ? I would ask the TD to correct his errors. :-) On the evidence, 6NT could make, so NS should get that score. Whether EW should get the assigned adjusted score of 6NT-1 depends on whether the TD feels that law 82C should apply. IMO, if he had ruled correctly in the first case, and his explanation _was_ confusing, then 82C should apply. I'm not so sure, though, that EW are entitled to redress given that the incorrect ruling harmed NS more that it did EW. Note: the reason I say ask the TD to fix it is that bit about the committee not being able to overrule the TD on matters of Law (Law 93B3). Note: I'm new at this, so don't be surprised if several people say I'm all wet. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 06:07:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 06:07:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail2.rochester.rr.com (mta@mail2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25103 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 06:07:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mail2.rochester.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 22 May 1999 16:10:55 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199905221826.OAA08479@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 16:05:07 -0400 To: David Grabiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Would you rule an infraction if 2C was a good score? This is an interesting question. It seems to imply that the _result_ of a psyche should govern whether it was an infraction. It seems to me that the result should make no difference whatsoever. You said yourself that there's no evidence of a CPU, nor of UI. That being the case, I don't see how once could rule an infraction. What's the basis? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN0cPPL2UW3au93vOEQI6fgCdH64grq8WOUT8oVAv9hcePpFu6r8AoNca yUax1esaFe0lCH0z8RBNC9O8 =dQ8i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 06:12:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 06:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25124 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 06:12:20 +1000 (EST) 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 QAA00417 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 16:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 16:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905222012.QAA10285@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Ed Reppert on Sat, 22 May 1999 16:05:07 -0400) Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes: > David Grabiner writes: >> Would you rule an infraction if 2C was a good score? > This is an interesting question. It seems to imply that the _result_ of a > psyche should govern whether it was an infraction. It seems to me that the > result should make no difference whatsoever. This wasn't the question I intended to ask; it should be "Would you rule an *adjustment* if 2C was a good score?" UI/MI infractions which cause no damage are common. In some cases, they are penalized by procedural penalties. This could also be done for fielded psyches; I believe this is the UK policy, for example. > You said yourself that there's no evidence of a CPU, nor of UI. That being > the case, I don't see how once could rule an infraction. What's the basis? In the ACBL, an agreement to psyche is illegal; this psyche may have been fielded based on an agreement to play for swings. -- 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 May 23 07:42:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 07:42:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25358 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 07:42:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-238-129.s129.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.238.129]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15133 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 17:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001201bea49b$ea90d900$81ee7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199905221753.NAA07731@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 17:41:47 -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 > > > We sometimes comment down at the YC "everyone except the L&E can see > > that North psyched". But even that aside he has no UI, and with a > > 3-card fit and the suits breaking badly it seems obvious to pass. > > Is a fielded psyche not an automatic infraction in the UK? > > -- > David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu > http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner > Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! > Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. > What exactly is a psyche? Is it fair to call it a bid that represents a gross distortion of values or distribution that the call would normally show? What exactly does a bid normally show when partner is barred by law from responding? It's certainly not anything that would be on the pair's convention card. If a bid doesn't show anything specific, how can it be a psyche? It can't. If a call doesn't show anything in the pair's system (and a player opposite a barred hand, even for one round, is not engaged in a systemic constructive auction), it can't be a misdecription either. N's action with intent to deceive could be called destructive bidding if you want; but it's not a psyche in the usual sense of the term, and that seems to have been leading some people astray. Fielding? S has no clue what is going on. How can he be faulted for failing to make a systemic response to a non-systemic call? All he can do is flip a coin when he actually gets a chance to bid again. Maybe he will be right. The ACBL has a bizarre little regulation called the Law of Coincidence that would appear to apply here . I'm actually surprised that nobody has dragged that one in yet. The L16 argument is the one that appears to apply here, but who knows what the LAa are with an unknown N hand? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 07:52:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 07:52:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25384 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 07:51:55 +1000 (EST) From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.9.3/8.9.0) with UUCP id QAA75633 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 22 May 1999 16:51:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0NMAG00W Sat, 22 May 99 16:48:46 Message-ID: <9905221648.0NMAG00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sat, 22 May 99 16:48:46 Subject: Director error(s)? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The bad news is that the director got the definition of a minor penalty card wrong. The good news is that because of west's holdings he will have to play the DT when he next plays a diamond. The really bad news is that with a correct ruling west's mistake should have given declarer a risk free diamond finesse and hence declarer may have been damaged by the ruling. But the terrible news is that the director made an even worse ruling by not making the Dx a penalty card as required. First, the effect of the first ruling on EW is immaterial because W would have been required to play the DT for his next diamond whether or not the director had gotten it right so EW were not damaged by the first bad ruling. That is to say that confused or not, there was no room for confusion on west's part. Also, it is not very likely that NS were damaged by the first ruling from the loss of the risk free diamond finesse since that does not necessarily hurt the prospect of 12- say if diamonds are KTxxx off side or Kxxxx onside. However, by playing a second heart, the required play of the major PC DT all but guarantees the contract. And declarer was correct to not take this line given the minor PC. For whatever reason, declarer did not mention this line when he did objected to the result so even though the hands can be reconstructed, there is no certainty as to the result had the ruling been correct. Had the second error not happened I believe that L82C would require [no way to rectify the effect of the wrong ruling] that an adjusted score where each side was non offending would be awarded- The best likely result for NS is 12 tricks by playing four rounds of hearts, winning a club return [a spade return breaks the pointy squeeze], playing two rounds of spades and the fifth heart squeezes W with the diamond finesse working. For EW = 2 tricks on a diamond finesse line. The effect of the second ruling is material and indeed damaged NS. Declarer's assertion is correct and he can claim, by forcing the play of the penalty card on a second heart and giving up a diamond, 12 tricks had there been a proper ruling. As the hands can be reconstructed at the point of second the erroneous ruling and the subsequent play is certain, the error can be rectified [L82C] by ruling the second diamond as a PC. 12 tricks NS and one trick EW. The AC should request the director to rectify his rulings on the law and use their findings of the facts [that the second error can be rectified and the first error was immaterial given what happened subsequently] when applying L82C. Roger Pewick O>Derrick writes: O>> Hi to all O>> Would appreciate your opinions on the following: O>> Team of 4 O>> S AKxx O>> H K98xx O>> D x O>> C xxx O>> S Jxxx S xxx O>> H ---- H Txxxx O>> D Txxxx D Kx O>> C xxx3 C KQx O>> S QT O>> H AQJ O>> D AQJ9x O>> C AJT O> O>> Contract: 6NT by S O>> Lead: Sx O>> Play: O>> Spade lead won by Spade 10. O>> Heart A, west drops C3 and DT. O>> Playing director called. West says C3 discard meant. Director O>(playing) > rules DT as minor penalty card, explains implications and O>leaves. O>This is an error; the DT should be a major penalty card. (A ten is an O>honor.) O>Assuming that the DT had properly been described as a major penalty O>card, South could have played another heart, forcing the discard of the O>DT and ensuring the contract. O>> Heart A, C3, Hx, Hx O>> Diamond J, Dx ! O>> Director! West claims confusion over director's prior explanation. O>Director > rules play the DT, replace Dx in hand, no further penalty. O>> Play continues: DJ, DT, Dx, DK O>> Club K, Club A etc.... Result: 6NT-1 O>> Subsequently S appeals director's decision claiming that with a O>subsequent > D penalty card, he would play the Heart Q after winning the O>club A, thus > ensuring 4 diamond tricks. O>> How would you rule as AC member ? Roger Pewick Houston, Tx ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 08:08:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 08:08:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail2.rochester.rr.com (mta@mail2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.75]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25425 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 08:08:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mail2.rochester.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.2 release 221 ID# 0-53939U80000L80000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 22 May 1999 18:11:20 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199905222012.QAA10285@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: (message from Ed Reppert on Sat, 22 May 1999 16:05:07 -0400) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 18:09:50 -0400 To: David Grabiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> David Grabiner writes: >This wasn't the question I intended to ask; it should be "Would you rule >an *adjustment* if 2C was a good score?" Again, an adjustment seems appropriate only if there's been an infraction. >UI/MI infractions which cause no damage are common. In some cases, they >are penalized by procedural penalties. This could also be done for >fielded psyches; I believe this is the UK policy, for example. I believe you're right. :-) >> You said yourself that there's no evidence of a CPU, nor of UI. That being >> the case, I don't see how once could rule an infraction. What's the basis? > >In the ACBL, an agreement to psyche is illegal; this psyche may have >been fielded based on an agreement to play for swings. An unannounced agreement to play for swings would be a CPU; you said there's no evidence of such. But okay, assume there is an agreement to play for swings. Does that constitute an agreement to psyche? If responder acts in a way which might field a psyche (if there was one) is that _necessarily_ evidence that he _did_ field a psyche? (I'm asking because, while I think the answer is "no", I'm not sure that everyone else on this list would agree, and if I'm wrong, I'd like to know why. :) Let's go back to square one. What has happened? East, knowing they need a swing, psyched his 1C opening. West, with 19 points balanced, and also knowing they need a swing, passes South's double, thus (presumably) "forcing" North to bid. North bids 1S, P, P. Why did West now only bid 2C? With 19 HCP, even if partner has as few as 10, they _must_ have a game on, which others will almost certainly find. If partner psyched with a Yarborough, then 2C is probably enough - and if opps bid on, they could be in serious trouble (they will definitely be in serious trouble if East has 10 points!) But is West fielding his partner's psyche, or trying one of his own, in hopes of causing opps to go for big numbers? If, as you say, there's no evidence of a CPU, I'd be disinclined to assume one. (Others may disagree. If so, I'd like to know their reasoning. :) So I would tend to think both East and West are trying some strange bidding in the hopes of somehow collecting that swing. Absent a CPU, that's perfectly legal. So I would not adjust the score _even if_ it turned out good for them. That statement will probably generate some howls of protest but there it is. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN0crdr2UW3au93vOEQKzzACfdPudy/nD83gFGPKSh1HsAlkQBH8AoJfz 4qfexIp0W6fBWeazpqbfbiCc =dxnA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 09:15:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA25533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 09:15:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA25526 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 09:15:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem16.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.144] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10lKzP-0006Bv-00; Sun, 23 May 1999 00:15:36 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "John Probst" , Subject: Re: OPENING P Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:52:38 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll ---------- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: OPENING P > Date: 19 May 1999 23:11 > > In article <199905191814.OAA29582@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >> From: Eric Landau > > > >On the other hand, if the out-of-turn passer's hand turns out to be > >xxx xxx xxx xxxx, I wonder whether Eric might reach a different > >conclusion. (This is Grattan's point expressed in less elegant > >language.) I, for one, would have a serious think about L72B1, but > >L16C2 applied to passer's partner would probably do the job in most > >cases. > > > Indeed I'd accept that one *could know* that a POOT on this might cause > damage. +++++ No doubt either way, or both. But my point is that the cross-reference was put in the laws so that there was an explicit basis for taking action where there could be a margin of doubt about the genuine nature of the irregularity. Some years back we had two cases in England, not far apart in time, of a POOT on a hand that would not respond to a one opener, with the dealer then producing a psyche.The first of these might have been a spot of initiative but the second was almost certainly 'copycat' after the first case had been talked about. That was what caused me to persuade Kaplan we needed overt provision for the Director to act if he felt a pair were 'operating'. ++++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 11:36:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 11:36:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.mindspring.com (smtp2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25894 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 11:36:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh0b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.11]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA12923 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 21:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990522213435.007200ec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 21:34:35 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche In-Reply-To: <199905221753.NAA07731@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:53 PM 5/22/99 -0400, David G wrote: >Is a fielded psyche not an automatic infraction in the UK? I've never played in the UK and wouldn't presume to guess at their particular implementation of the Laws. But I have a hard time imagining that a "fielded psych" is an infraction, per se, there or anywhere. Well, maybe I could imagine it in ACBL-land, but then they are not such sticklers for conforming their regulations to the requirements of the Laws. Are we talking about the same thing when we use the phrase "fielded psych"? To me, it means that the psych-bidder's partner has deduced what his partner is up to and acted on that conclusion. Now this certainly might be illegal, if for example the conclusion was influenced by UI (a sneaky grin on pard's mug), or if the partnership had an unannounced agreement to psych in particular situations, even if that agreement evolved out of partnership experience rather than specific discussion. But if a player deduces that partner has psyched based on his own general bridge knowledge, his own cards, and/or the logic of the auction and the opponents' actions, he is fully entitled to do so, and has no obligation either to inform the opponents of his conclusion or to base subsequent actions on the nominal meaning of partner's action. Right??? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 11:46:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 11:46:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.mindspring.com (smtp2.mindspring.com [207.69.200.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25932 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 11:46:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh0b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.11]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA26838 for ; Sat, 22 May 1999 21:45:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990522214355.007209fc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 21:43:55 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <199905221826.OAA08479@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:26 PM 5/22/99 -0400, David G wrote: > >The recent discussion of North's psyche with South barred, and whether >South fielded it by passing, leads to the natural question of what >information makes it authorized to expect partner to psyche. > >Here's one example. E-W were trailing by 40 IMPs in the last 14 boards >of a KO. East dealt at favorable vulerability. West held a balanced 19 >count. > >W N E S > 1C X >P 1S P P >2C > >West has the AI that his team needs a swiug. There is no reason to >believe that West has UI or that there is a CPU. However, it is >possible, from West's point of view, that East opened a distributional >10 count, and South doubled on a 4-4-4-1 10 count. Under ACBL rules, it >is not permitted to have an agreement to psyche. > >Would you rule an infraction if 2C was a good score? (It was moot at >the table; East had psyched, but E-W could still make 3NT or 5C, and 1Sx >would have gone for 500. As South, I reported the incident to the >director.) > On the facts as given, absolutely not. An "infraction" means that the player has violated a specific Law or regulation. In these circumstances the usual suspects are a CPU or UI, but you've specifically ruled these out. Might it be argued that EW had an illegal agreement to psych? Not consistently with the information provided. Presumably West did not reveal any such agreement (or we wouldn't be facing this issue), and so if there was an agreement, it was a concealed one, contrary to your hypothesis. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 14:57:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 14:57:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26407 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 14:57:05 +1000 (EST) 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 VAA20447; Sat, 22 May 1999 21:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03f801bea4d8$a271a2c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <3.0.1.32.19990522213435.007200ec@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 21:47:29 -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 Michael S. Dennis wrote: > At 01:53 PM 5/22/99 -0400, David G wrote: > >Is a fielded psyche not an automatic infraction in the UK? > > I've never played in the UK and wouldn't presume to guess at their > particular implementation of the Laws. But I have a hard time imagining > that a "fielded psych" is an infraction, per se, there or anywhere. Well, > maybe I could imagine it in ACBL-land, but then they are not such sticklers > for conforming their regulations to the requirements of the Laws. > > Are we talking about the same thing when we use the phrase "fielded psych"? > To me, it means that the psych-bidder's partner has deduced what his > partner is up to and acted on that conclusion. Now this certainly might be > illegal, if for example the conclusion was influenced by UI (a sneaky grin > on pard's mug), or if the partnership had an unannounced agreement to psych > in particular situations, even if that agreement evolved out of partnership > experience rather than specific discussion. I think what most people mean by "fielding a psych" is the catching of partner's psych when when there is no legitimate explanation for the catch. > > But if a player deduces that partner has psyched based on his own general > bridge knowledge, his own cards, and/or the logic of the auction and the > opponents' actions, he is fully entitled to do so, and has no obligation > either to inform the opponents of his conclusion or to base subsequent > actions on the nominal meaning of partner's action. Right??? > Right, and well expressed. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 17:14:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA26587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 17:14:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from Q.inter.net.il (q.internet-zahav.net [192.116.192.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26582 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 17:14:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.192]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA21749 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 10:14:25 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3747AB0B.934AF0EF@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 10:15:24 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Master Points - Aims , "profits" , methods . Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dear Friends A group of TDs here wonders about the "Theory of Master points". It is clear that there is a need to "classify" the players in a known way , but this is not enough . I don't want to express now MHO - anyway we would like to know your opinions about the aims , goals , "profits" and the use of the MP . If you can also indicate the webs of your national federations where this theory appears (if at all.....) we will be very thankfully . Thank you very much Dany From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 23:00:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 23:00:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27102 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 23:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem90.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.90] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10lXrO-0004WU-00; Sun, 23 May 1999 14:00:10 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 13:48:33 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche > Date: 23 May 1999 02:34 > > At 01:53 PM 5/22/99 -0400, David G wrote: > >Is a fielded psyche not an automatic infraction in the UK? > > I've never played in the UK and wouldn't presume to guess at their > particular implementation of the Laws. But I have a hard time imagining > that a "fielded psych" is an infraction, per se, there or anywhere. > ++++ In England a psyche may be drawn to the attention of the Director*, in which event it is normally recorded by him on a form provided. The Chief Director classifies the psyche as (a) 'Green' = innocuous, or (b) 'Amber' = would not be acceptable if repeated often enough to create a pattern, or (c) 'Red' = opposite the psyche partner's subsequent action is abnormal and evidently caters for partner having psyched [Violation of Law 40A - artass score and standardised procedural penalty of 10% produces 30-60%]. All psyche forms are forwarded to the Secretary of the L&E Committee and reviewed via a two-tier process which causes doubtful classifications to be amongst items examined at a meeting - a few classifications are changed and the players notified; where the proposed change is to a more severe level the player is first invited to comment. I do not know the current proprtions currently but I would speculate they might be 5% Red, 12% Amber, 83% Green. If I am wrong I expect the 83% should be a higher figure, and that is from the cases that are heard about. ( I am confident the 'infamous' Lille psyche would be recorded as Green (it might just get to be Amber if there were additional background knowledge.) ~ Grattan ~ ++++ [* preferably by the partnership which has psyched] From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 23 23:00:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 May 1999 23:00:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27101 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 23:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem90.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.90] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10lXrQ-0004WU-00; Sun, 23 May 1999 14:00:12 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 13:56:50 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- " Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > Date: 23 May 1999 02:43 > > At 02:26 PM 5/22/99 -0400, David G wrote: > > > >The recent discussion of North's psyche with South barred, and whether > >South fielded it by passing, leads to the natural question of what > >information makes it authorized to expect partner to psyche. +++ Nothing preceding the psyche. There can be no implicit agreement to psyche. After the psyche the responder may only recognize that partner has psyched from the subsequent development of the auction and must be able to demonstrate this is so. Law 40A is adamant that a psyche may not be based on a partnership understanding. No knowledge of partner's tendencies, no reading in common with partner of circumstances as being opportune for a psyche is AI for the diagnosis of a psyche. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 00:01:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 00:01:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA27246 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 00:01:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA29899 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 May 1999 15:00:33 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 23 May 99 15:00 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) 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: <199905221121.NAA01489@isa.dknet.dk> "Jens & Bodil" wrote: > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > I disagree with TR. Declarer is supposed to wait for my partner to > > play, if he plays prematurely when I am in a position to make an > > informative play he has made a mistake which I feel entitled to > > punish > > L10A tells us that the players are not entitled to punish > irregularities. And, as Marvin tells us, players have no right to > play out of turn deliberately, whatever the reason. > There is, IMO, a big difference between punishing an irregularity (the TD's job) and "punishing" a bridge mistake (which happens to also be an irregularity) the first of these uses punish in the sense of penalise the second in the sense of making them suffer/extracting maximum benefit. L55A empowers defenders to accept a lead from the wrong hand. I had always understood the spirit of L57C to be "once declarer has played from both hands either defender can consider it their turn to play" (ignoring the headings obviously). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 01:38:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 01:38:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00404 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 01:38:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from JESPER ([195.249.193.20]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990523153819.BZIN22252.fep4@JESPER> for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 17:38:19 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 17:38:00 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <374a1c6f.4177917@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA00405 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 23 May 99 15:00 BST, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >I had always >understood the spirit of L57C to be "once declarer has played from both >hands either defender can consider it their turn to play" (ignoring the >headings obviously). L57 is a law that tells us what to do after the irregularity of playing out of turn. L57C tells us not to penalize if declarer has played from both hands. It does not say that the defender's play out of turn is no longer an irregularity - on the contrary, the headline of L57C still uses the word "irregularity". It says "is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner", where it should have said "is allowed to play before his partner" if that was the intention. There is nothing in L57C that cancels the obligation to play in turn. If my interpretation of this is in accordance with the WBFLC's intentions, I suggest that the word "inadvertently" should be added before "playing before his partner" in the next revision of the laws. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 05:08:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 05:08:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA01048 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 05:08:05 +1000 (EST) From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h66.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id XAA29014; Sun, 23 May 1999 23:07:55 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3748DF99.4179@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 22:11:53 -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: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; name="PASSED.TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="PASSED.TXT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I tried to be silent... Well - then my two pence: For being more understandable I'd like to start "from the tail". Wayne wrote:"Why should South think that North has real opener... I wouldn't even consider many otherwise sub-minimum" openings as a psyches" And why South should not? From other side - sub-minimum opinion really is not psyche at all, even - not in such situation. John wrote:"The point I'm making is that South can deduce from the auction that North has psyched, and thus he has not fielded it" "But I don't think 72B1 applies when you have a 10-count. I think it does when you hold xxx xxxx xxx xxx" Jeremy Richard wrote:"As others have asked. why does this apply to a psyche, but not to more normal "enterprise", such as bidding a speculative 3NT?" OK - what South can deduce it from?:) (Same question without any attempt of response was asked by D.Grabiner). The possible logical answer is: from common previous history. No accusation - only possibility. But I'd like to ask them about it... Otherwise Pass at re-open position with the hand is rather strange: there might be choice between 3-4 Hearts or even 2NT (minors + at least semifit). Somebody wrote that South could determine bad break. One may suspect that it means in this very board 3-3 (or even 4-3) Hearts at opponent's hands:) Second John's quotation is even more doubtful (for my personal opinion). It was said several times (for example - Jeremy Richard's position) that with rather strong hand (18+ points) partner will bid 3NT (or something like). That's why hand with exactly 6-8 points fully protects (after POOT) the possible strong partner's bidding:) Hirsh Davis wrote:"N's action with intent to deceive could be called destructive bidding if you want; but it's not psyche in the usual sense of the term... Fielding? S has no clue what is going on... Who knows what the LAs are with an unknown N hand?" It is not common sense strategy with one-round-passed-partner (even moreover - neither usual nor right strategy) to search first of all destructive possibilities. Because with 12-17 points and good distribution there is still possible that opponents will bid and passed partner will receive right for free call. And this partnership may bid their best contract without like-lottery-decision. Even with weaker hand North (after partner's POOT) knows that the hand belongs to opponents - that's why usually the best strategy is to make easier for partner's future defence and especially - the first lead. And only at third position there is destructive aim. Everything said above isn't last true - it is no more than my opinion. Tim wrote:"The knowledge that partner is barred (one round or entirely) suggests all sorts of strategies and bids that would not otherwise be considered...But in original case please make sure that NS know South was only barred for one round rather than throughout" That's why my opinion is that in such case main stream of strategy is: 1. All conventions and agreements are not exist 2. Every bids are natural - it means "I'd like to play it" 3. Possible destructive bids are seminatural - it means "I'd like to play it without double, otherwise - I'll see" Then - if this very South deduced the meaning No. 3 - he might have previous experience. Then (especially with 6 points) he could have known all of it in the moment of POOT... And all bids that might have meaning No.3 - should be alerted. Is it really case where "everyone except L@E can see that North psyched?" I doubt. I do not deduce that North psyched. Too grey-minded am I, sorry. I wish to ask this experienced NS if their 1 Heart should be alerted too. Without such questions - there are too much doubts with this bidding. Especially - for experienced pair. Best wishes Vitold P.S. Wishes and regards from DWS who has just finished (successful) to rule as CTD at Moscow invitation tournament. By the way - David quite eager follows to basic Russian customs: might it be that family of Stewens arrived to GB (centuries ago) from Russia?:) From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 06:43:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 06:43:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA01282 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 06:43:37 +1000 (EST) From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h97.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id AAA04747; Mon, 24 May 1999 00:43:28 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <3748F5FE.1BCA@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 23:47:27 -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: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: <3748DF99.4179@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all) I wrote: > > OK - what South can deduce it from?:) (Same question without any > attempt of response was asked by D.Grabiner). And only after receiving the massage back I understood my extremely bad wording. I meant - there were no responses in subsequent posts, not in David's post. Sorry David. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 07:21:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA01416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 07:21:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA01411 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 07:21:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveibr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.73.123]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17009 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 17:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990523171851.00732f0c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 17:18:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:56 PM 5/23/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >> At 02:26 PM 5/22/99 -0400, David G wrote: >> > >> >The recent discussion of North's psyche with South barred, and whether >> >South fielded it by passing, leads to the natural question of what >> >information makes it authorized to expect partner to psyche. > >+++ Nothing preceding the psyche. There can be no implicit agreement >to psyche. After the psyche the responder may only recognize that partner >has psyched from the subsequent development of the auction and must >be able to demonstrate this is so. Law 40A is adamant that a psyche may >not be based on a partnership understanding. No knowledge of partner's >tendencies, no reading in common with partner of circumstances as being >opportune for a psyche is AI for the diagnosis of a psyche. While Grattan is the undisputed authority within this forum on issues concerning the history and intent of the lawmakers, his broad reading of L40A begs the question of why the authors failed to express the above principles in the language of the Law itself, because the words just aren't there. There is nothing "adamant" in the language of 40A; it is simply clear that the psyche can't be based on a partnership understanding. Which is what, exactly? Well, in other contexts we have used that phrase to describe either an explicit partnership agreement about how to treat certain bids (or plays), or an implicit agreement deriving from relevant partnership experience. In the case at hand, if this situation had arisen in a similar context (i.e., psyche by partner of barred POOTer), even once, then I would be inclined to agree that an illegal, implicit agreement was in place. But absent such relevant history, the evidence of the bidding suggesting that South suspected a psyche (and I grant that the evidence does indicate such a suspicion) is _not_ dispositive on the legal issue of whether NS had such an agreement. That South is forbidden from considering either the conditions preceding the psyche (such as the fact that he is barred from bidding), or partner's general tendency toward aggressiveness in evaluating the possibility of a psyche is _in no way_ communicated by the actual words in the Law, nor are these limitations consistent with other AI/UI distinctions. I have to assume that Grattan knows what he's talking about when he discusses legislative intent, but in this case I must register my protest at such a wide disparity between the letter of the Law and the meaning Grattan would have us derive from it. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 09:47:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA01700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 09:47:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA01695 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 09:47:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem3.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.3] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10lhxj-0007wF-00; Mon, 24 May 1999 00:47:24 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 00:43:00 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "[There are] more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another." = Montaigne llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll ---------- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > Date: 23 May 1999 22:18 > ------------------- \x/ -------------------------- > (Grattan's) broad reading of > L40A begs the question of why the authors failed to express the above > principles in the language of the Law itself, because the words just aren't > there. > > There is nothing "adamant" in the language of 40A; it is simply clear that > the psyche can't be based on a partnership understanding. Which is what, > exactly? Well, in other contexts we have used that phrase to describe > either an explicit partnership agreement about how to treat certain bids > (or plays), or an implicit agreement deriving from relevant partnership > experience. In the case at hand, if this situation had arisen in a similar > context (i.e., psyche by partner of barred POOTer), even once, then I would > be inclined to agree that an illegal, implicit agreement was in place. > > But absent such relevant history, the evidence of the bidding suggesting > that South suspected a psyche (and I grant that the evidence does indicate > such a suspicion) is _not_ dispositive on the legal issue of whether NS had > such an agreement. That South is forbidden from considering either the > conditions preceding the psyche (such as the fact that he is barred from > bidding), or partner's general tendency toward aggressiveness in evaluating > the possibility of a psyche is _in no way_ communicated by the actual words > in the Law, nor are these limitations consistent with other AI/UI > distinctions. > > I have to assume that Grattan knows what he's talking about when he > discusses legislative intent, but in this case I must register my protest > at such a wide disparity between the letter of the Law and the meaning > Grattan would have us derive from it. ++++ How kind! But I think you underestimate the law. If you and your partner understand in common that these are circumstances in which he would be liable to psyche you do have a partnership understanding; it is not an understanding that all partnerships would have so it is special to you. A gross departure from announced system is permissible only when it is not based upon an understanding common to the two members of a partnership( which gives them an edge over opponents in recognizing its occurrence). You can, of course, announce your understanding and it then becomes part of your system and subject to regulation. (It is a convention if it may not relate to the suit named, and if always natural it is subject to regulation under Law 40D if liable to be made on fewer than eight HCP.) I fear you have simply failed to grasp how much force is present in the few simple words in a law which speaks softly but carries a big stick. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 12:32:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA01922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 12:32:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA01917 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 12:32:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh4a.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.138]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29910 for ; Sun, 23 May 1999 22:31:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990523222941.0072f05c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 22:29:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:43 AM 5/24/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >++++ I think you underestimate the law. If you and >your partner understand in common that these are circumstances in >which he would be liable to psyche you do have a partnership >understanding; it is not an understanding that all partnerships would >have so it is special to you. No, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. There is a whole world between an understanding that not all partnerships would share and one which is "special" to yours. In particular, the realm of general bridge knowledge, or even the more specialized realm of a minority philosophy shared generally within a broad community, neither of which is necessarily accessible to "all other partnerships". It is obvious from this discussion that at least a significant minority of reasonable players would regard this situation (partner barred for POOTing) as an obvious opportunity for a psyche. If two such players got together for the first time, with no discussion beyond a superficial agreement about systems, and this situation arose early on, then it is completely possible, and completely legal (IMO) for the South player to tread cautiously with partner's bid, taking into account how he might act in his partner's stead. This is not in any way a "partnership understanding", it is just a case of each player exercising his legal rights and judgements based on general bridge knowledge. That these judgements might coincide is good fortune, perhaps, but nothing more. Certainly not a "partnership understanding" within the normal meaning of that phrase. Are we (TD and/or AC) entitled to ask for an explanation of the reasoning? Yes, of course. But there is no basis in the wording of L40A to rule against South if he offers an explanation much like what I have supplied above, namely that nothing like this situation has ever occurred within this partnership, but that he considered partner's bid after he was barred to be suspect, based purely on the nature of the situation and how he would be likely to react himself. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 17:39:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA02310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 17:39:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.mindspring.com (smtp4.mindspring.com [207.69.200.64]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02305 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 17:39:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-129.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.129]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA06643 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 03:39:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <374902B4.7CBF0C13@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 00:41:40 -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 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > [snip quote and Mike Dennis's comments] > > ++++ How kind! But I think you underestimate the law. If you and > your partner understand in common that these are circumstances in > which he would be liable to psyche you do have a partnership > understanding; it is not an understanding that all partnerships would > have so it is special to you. A gross departure from announced > system is permissible only when it is not based upon an understanding > common to the two members of a partnership( which gives them an > edge over opponents in recognizing its occurrence). You can, of course, > announce your understanding and it then becomes part of your system > and subject to regulation. (It is a convention if it may not relate to > the suit named, and if always natural it is subject to regulation under > Law 40D if liable to be made on fewer than eight HCP.) > I fear you have simply failed to grasp how much force is > present in the few simple words in a law which speaks softly but > carries a big stick. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ Wow. Let's not put too fine a point on it: This practically disallows psyching in many instances. Let's suppose that I sit down for the first time as a partner to a brand new partner, a person whom I have never played against or with and we fill out a convention card. As we are doing so, we discuss bridge theory (not psyching) and we both analyze each other as good, imaginative players. Board 1, matchpoints, favorable, I open a maximum weak 2H bid (hand not supplied; trying to avoid bridge-related disputes) and the bidding proceeds: 2H-P-3N-X P-4S-P-P to me, holding whatever the maximum spade holding is that I can. I pass it, figuring there is a substantial likelihood partner has psyched 3N. The opponents, unfortunately, are not good and not imaginative, so they won't know this. In fact, partner has indeed psyched; he has a lovely balanced 7-count with four hearts. If you aren't fond of that example, how about 2H-X-2S; I'm not prone to this particular psyche at all since it should never work, but what if partner caters to it? What if we ever talk about what psyches work and what psyches don't? And, of course, from there it gets worse. I psyche a 1NT opener about once a year and my partner is more likely to get it right than my opponents, on a relative basis, anyway. Since we now have an implicit agreement to open 1NT on eight-pointers on rare occasion, our NTs are no longer allowed to have conventional rebids under ACBL regulations, right (8-17 is too wide a range)? And there's no way I can now play regulation notrumps, because I am not going to swear not to do it any more (and besides, as a lawyer, no one will believe me anyway. :) ) So, tomorrow, by rule, I will strike Stayman and transfers and my whole NT structure off the card, unless I can find a partner who has never heard of me and will play with me. Then, I'll play Stayman -- until sometime in August, when I do it again. --JRM > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 18:20:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA02348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 18:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02343 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 18:20:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-234.uunet.be [194.7.9.234]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA03055 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 10:20:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 18:27:16 +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: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sun, 23 May 99 15:00 BST, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > wrote: > >I had always > >understood the spirit of L57C to be "once declarer has played from both > >hands either defender can consider it their turn to play" (ignoring the > >headings obviously). > > L57 is a law that tells us what to do after the irregularity of > playing out of turn. > > L57C tells us not to penalize if declarer has played from both hands. > > It does not say that the defender's play out of turn is no longer an > irregularity - on the contrary, the headline of L57C still uses the > word "irregularity". > > It says "is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner", > where it should have said "is allowed to play before his partner" if > that was the intention. > > There is nothing in L57C that cancels the obligation to play in turn. > I started this thread because I saw a difference between two cases. An intentional lead out of turn, because declarer had already seen dummy's cards, is not to be allowed, because the player does in fact commit an infraction. Agreed. So I proposed this topic because it is somewhat alike, and you are sauying it is completely alike. You state that he layer who intentionally plays before partner (to the same trick) is also committing an infraction. First of all I would like you to admit that this is a far lesser infraction. Indeed, play proceeds without any interference. The correct person is still on lead, etc. The only thing the player can gain by doing this, is transmit some information to his partner. Information which is IMO authorized. We agree that the infraction is without penalty (L57C). Does it remain an infraction nevertheless? You talk of "the obligation to play in turn". That obligation is put forward in L44B "each other player in turn plays a card". Notice that this is in the present tense, of which the preface says that it "establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized". In fact the violation we are talking of is explicitely declared to be without penalty. OTOH, L72B2 states that "a player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay". Since this does not say "a player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if he is willing to pay the prescribed penalty", we must conclude that L72B2 is also applicable to infringements without penalty. I believe that makes moot the next question I was going to ask : "can something be an infringement of law if it is explicitely made without penalty". It seems the laws have covered this base already. So I will align myself to your view, Jesper, and no longer intentionally play in fourth seat when dummy does so. I may well do so ocasionally unintentionally from now on, just to teach dummies. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 24 22:45:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 May 1999 22:45:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02781 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 22:45:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp126.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.23.182.6]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA05221; Mon, 24 May 1999 22:45:28 +1000 Message-ID: <001001bea5e3$4e9fb040$06b617cb@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 22:45:28 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01BEA637.1F360A80" 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_000D_01BEA637.1F360A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Herman De Wael=20 To: Bridge Laws=20 Sent: 24 May 1999 2:27 Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Jesper Dybdal wrote: >=20 > On Sun, 23 May 99 15:00 BST, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim = West-meads) > wrote: > >I had always > >understood the spirit of L57C to be "once declarer has played from = both > >hands either defender can consider it their turn to play" (ignoring = the > >headings obviously). >=20 > L57 is a law that tells us what to do after the irregularity of > playing out of turn. >=20 > L57C tells us not to penalize if declarer has played from both = hands. >=20 > It does not say that the defender's play out of turn is no longer an > irregularity - on the contrary, the headline of L57C still uses the > word "irregularity". >=20 > It says "is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner", > where it should have said "is allowed to play before his partner" if > that was the intention. >=20 > There is nothing in L57C that cancels the obligation to play in = turn. >=20 I started this thread because I saw a difference between two cases. An intentional lead out of turn, because declarer had already seen dummy's cards, is not to be allowed, because the player does in fact commit an infraction. Agreed. So I proposed this topic because it is somewhat alike, and you are sauying it is completely alike. You state that he layer who intentionally plays before partner (to the same trick) is also committing an infraction. First of all I would like you to admit that this is a far lesser infraction. Indeed, play proceeds without any interference. The correct person is still on lead, etc. The only thing the player can gain by doing this, is transmit some information to his partner. Information which is IMO authorized. We agree that the infraction is without penalty (L57C).=20 Does it remain an infraction nevertheless? You talk of "the obligation to play in turn". That obligation is put forward in L44B "each other player in turn plays a card". Notice that this is in the present tense, of which the preface says that it "establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized". In fact the violation we are talking of is explicitely declared to be without penalty. OTOH, L72B2 states that "a player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay". Since this does not say "a player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if he is willing to pay the prescribed penalty", we must conclude that L72B2 is also applicable to infringements without penalty. I believe that makes moot the next question I was going to ask : "can something be an infringement of law if it is explicitely made without penalty". It seems the laws have covered this base already. So I will align myself to your view, Jesper, and no longer intentionally play in fourth seat when dummy does so. I may well do so ocasionally unintentionally from now on, just to teach dummies. Law 44B states that "each player in turn plays a card.." declarers RHO = opponent has failed to do this therefore there is an infraction Law 57C says " A defender is not subject to penalty for playing before = his partner if declarer has played from both hands..."=20 however as there has been an infraction (Law 44B), and 16C2 applies = "For the offending side, informationfrom its own withdrawn action and = from withdrawn actions of the nonoffernding side is unauthorised." Therefore even if declarers RHO plays before his partner information = from this play is unauthorised. Sean Mullamphy. --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BEA637.1F360A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Herman De Wael
To: Bridge Laws
Sent: 24 May 1999 2:27
Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was = Re:=20 Declarer faces cards)

Jesper Dybdal wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 May 99 15:00 = BST, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk = (Tim=20 West-meads)
> wrote:
> >I had always
> = >understood the=20 spirit of L57C to be "once declarer has played from both
> = >hands=20 either defender can consider it their turn to play" (ignoring = the
>=20 >headings obviously).
>
> L57 is a law that tells us = what to=20 do after the irregularity of
> playing out of turn.
> =
>=20 L57C tells us not to penalize if declarer has played from both = hands.
>=20
> It does not say that the defender's play out of turn is no = longer=20 an
> irregularity - on the contrary, the headline of L57C still = uses=20 the
> word "irregularity".
>
> It says "is not = subject to=20 penalty for playing before his partner",
> where it should have = said "is=20 allowed to play before his partner" if
> that was the = intention.
>=20
> There is nothing in L57C that cancels the obligation to play = in=20 turn.
>

I started this thread because I saw a difference = between=20 two
cases.

An intentional lead out of turn, because declarer = had
already seen dummy's cards, is not to be allowed, = because
the player=20 does in fact commit an infraction.  Agreed.

So I proposed = this=20 topic because it is somewhat alike, and
you are sauying it is = completely=20 alike.

You state that he layer who intentionally plays=20 before
partner (to the same trick) is also committing=20 an
infraction.

First of all I would like you to admit that = this is a=20 far
lesser infraction.  Indeed, play proceeds without=20 any
interference.  The correct person is still on lead, = etc.
The=20 only thing the player can gain by doing this, is
transmit some = information=20 to his partner. Information which
is IMO authorized.

We = agree that=20 the infraction is without penalty (L57C).
Does it remain an = infraction=20 nevertheless?

You talk of "the obligation to play in = turn".

That=20 obligation is put forward in L44B "each other player in
turn plays = a=20 card".

Notice that this is in the present tense, of which=20 the
preface says that it "establishes correct procedure = without
any=20 suggestion that a violation be penalized".

In fact the = violation we are=20 talking of is explicitely
declared to be without = penalty.

OTOH,=20 L72B2 states that "a player must not infringe a law
intentionally, = even if=20 there is a prescribed penalty he is
willing to pay".

Since = this does=20 not say "a player must not infringe a law
intentionally, even if he = is=20 willing to pay the prescribed
penalty", we must conclude that L72B2 = is also=20 applicable to
infringements without penalty.

I believe that = makes=20 moot the next question I was going to
ask : "can something be an=20 infringement of law if it is
explicitely made without = penalty".  It=20 seems the laws have
covered this base already.

So I will = align=20 myself to your view, Jesper, and no longer
intentionally play in = fourth=20 seat when dummy does so.

I may well do so ocasionally = unintentionally=20 from now on,
just to teach dummies.

Law 44B = states that=20 "each player in turn plays a card.." declarers RHO opponent has failed = to do=20 this therefore there is an infraction
Law 57C says " A defender is not subject to = penalty for=20 playing before his partner if declarer has played from both=20 hands..." 
however as there has been an infraction (Law 44B), = and 16C2=20 applies "For the offending side, informationfrom its own withdrawn = action and=20 from withdrawn actions of the nonoffernding side is=20 unauthorised."
Therefore even if declarers RHO plays before his = partner=20 information from this play is unauthorised.
 
Sean Mullamphy.


--
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.galle= ry.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01BEA637.1F360A80-- From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 00:54:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 00:54:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05301 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 00:54:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from JESPER ([194.192.112.98]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990524145422.GHFM28514.fep1@JESPER> for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 16:54:22 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 16:54:20 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <374a6423.863020@post12.tele.dk> References: <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id AAA05302 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 23 May 1999 18:27:16 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: [about playing out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] >First of all I would like you to admit that this is a far >lesser infraction. Yes, indeed. Of course, as I've also said elsewhere, the addition of the word "inadvertently" to L57C would make it quite clear. Or, if I should be wrong and Herman's original view really is the intention of the WBFLC, change the wording to say clearly that the defender may also play out of turn. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 01:59:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 01:59:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA05430 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 01:59:16 +1000 (EST) 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 IAA04642 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 08:59:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003f01bea5fe$55c98920$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <374902B4.7CBF0C13@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 08:54:44 -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 John R. Mayne wrote: [snip of good stuff] > > And, of course, from there it gets worse. I psyche a 1NT opener about > once a year and my partner is more likely to get it right than my > opponents, on a relative basis, anyway. Since we now have an implicit > agreement to open 1NT on eight-pointers on rare occasion, our NTs are no > longer allowed to have conventional rebids under ACBL regulations, right > (8-17 is too wide a range)? And there's no way I can now play regulation > notrumps, because I am not going to swear not to do it any more (and > besides, as a lawyer, no one will believe me anyway. :) ) > The regulation forbidding conventions for those who use light (9 HCP or less) and/or wide-range (greater than 5 HCP) notrump openings does not apply if an agreed legal range is violated so rarely that partner will not suspect it until opposing bidding makes a psych quite obvious to any good player, and there is no convention to inquire about sub-minimum HCP (which would make it an illegal controlled psych). It's like opening one-of-a-suit bids. They are not permitted if the lower limit is by agreement fewer than 8 HCP, but this does not apply to uncontrolled psychs. A better analogy is an ultra-light weak two bid. A number of local pros violate their stated range frequently with clients, often with as little as one queen. When the TD is called, they explain that the bid was merely a psych. The TD nods sagely, and walks away. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 02:35:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA05647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 02:35:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA05642 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 02:35:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from pebs13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.236] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10lxhM-0000uL-00; Mon, 24 May 1999 17:35:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01bea603$21a31080$ec8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John R. Mayne" , Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 17:32:21 +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: 24 May 1999 09:22 Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > > > >Wow. Let's not put too fine a point on it: This practically disallows >psyching in many instances. ++++ To be a psyche the call must be a surprise to partner. This is not me speaking, this is Franklin and Kaplan. As much, they said, a surprise to partner as to opponents. Quite a lot of what people loosely describe as 'psyches' are no such thing; they hinge on an implicit partnership awareness, and as such are part of the partnership methods. ++++ > >Let's suppose that I sit down for the first time as a partner to a brand >new partner, a person whom I have never played against or with and we >fill out a convention card. As we are doing so, we discuss bridge theory >(not psyching) and we both analyze each other as good, imaginative >players. > >Board 1, matchpoints, favorable, I open a maximum weak 2H bid (hand not >supplied; trying to avoid bridge-related disputes) and the bidding >proceeds: > >2H-P-3N-X >P-4S-P-P +++ I doubt whether the theory and practice of Weak Twos gives you another shout; you have made a limit bid and the control is with partner. But see below. +++ > > >If you aren't fond of that example, how about 2H-X-2S; I'm not prone to >this particular psyche at all since it should never work, but what if >partner caters to it? What if we ever talk about what psyches work and >what psyches don't? > ++++ This so-say psyche, and also 1H - X - 1S, are quickly turned into understandings by partnership usage. That goes, too, for the 3N 'psyche' above. Once you start discussing what psyches work with partner you are surely entering the realm of partnership agreement. If I go back to the European Bridge League Commentary on the 1987 Laws, the following statement was authorized:: "Directors should bear in mind that the Laws have never countenanced a change in the understanding of what is a 'psychic' call. The fundamental unpreparedness of the psychic situation is as much a condition today as when a player first hit upon the idea of deliberately and grossly misrepresenting a hand". When the laws refer to a 'psyche' they are referring to a deliberate violation of announced system for which the partnership is not prepared. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 03:29:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 03:29:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05733 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 03:29:41 +1000 (EST) 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 NAA00145 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 13:29:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA03371 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 May 1999 13:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 13:29:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905241729.NAA03371@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > There is nothing in L57C that cancels the obligation to play in turn. I tend to agree with the above, but I see how others could read it differently. > If my interpretation of this is in accordance with the WBFLC's > intentions, I suggest that the word "inadvertently" should be added > before "playing before his partner" in the next revision of the laws. I agree with the sentiment to modify L57C, but please, please don't introduce another law that requires judging intent. Either make it legal for either defender to play, once declarer has played from both hands, or clarify that it is still illegal and provide a penalty. (For example, you might let declarer retract his play from the hand that didn't lead.) But please don't bring in intent. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 04:57:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA05937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 04:57:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA05932 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 04:57:33 +1000 (EST) From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h102.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id WAA13942; Mon, 24 May 1999 22:57:23 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <374A2EB5.10FF@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 22:01:41 -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: From David in Moscow Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all! Great fun at the Moscow International Invitation Pairs! I gave a ruling, and Vitold agreed with me at the AC - but he lost 3 to 1! Back in a couple of days: thanks to Vitold for borrowing his account! __ David Stevenson per Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 06:50:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA06172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 06:50:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA06167 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 06:50:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10m1fS-0003oW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 May 1999 22:49:51 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 22:45:36 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) In-Reply-To: <374a6423.863020@post12.tele.dk> References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:54 24-05-99 +0200, you wrote: >On Sun, 23 May 1999 18:27:16 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >[about playing out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] > >>First of all I would like you to admit that this is a far >>lesser infraction. > >Yes, indeed. > >Of course, as I've also said elsewhere, the addition of the word >"inadvertently" to L57C would make it quite clear. Or, if I should be >wrong and Herman's original view really is the intention of the WBFLC, >change the wording to say clearly that the defender may also play out >of turn. >-- well, the question is of course: is he paying out of turn after dummy played. See the analogy in bidding out of turn. The RHO has then the opportunity to accept it (an he is the first one to make the decision to accept it according to the law). So i would propose that the RHO of dummy has the right to accept playing out of turn by playing a card or calling the TD. I dont see an infringement of the laws by playing before PD played a card. Dummy played and then it is his turn to play, whatever happened before :) regards, anton >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . >http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 07:40:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 07:40:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06340 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 07:40:01 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14434) by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fWXRa02744; Mon, 24 May 1999 17:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 17:36:26 EDT Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? To: gester@globalnet.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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I once heard a "strategic" bid as any psyche made by a very well known player. Unfortunately in the conversation, it went completely over his head. Come on, guys, playing this kind of bridge is not what the game is all about. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 07:51:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA06364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 07:51:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA06359 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 07:51:04 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA13065 for ; Mon, 24 May 1999 14:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 14:50:18 -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: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > wrote: > > > >[about playing out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] > > > >>First of all I would like you to admit that this is a far > >>lesser infraction. > > > >Yes, indeed. > > > >Of course, as I've also said elsewhere, the addition of the word > >"inadvertently" to L57C would make it quite clear. Or, if I should be > >wrong and Herman's original view really is the intention of the WBFLC, > >change the wording to say clearly that the defender may also play out > >of turn. > >-- > > well, the question is of course: is he paying out of turn after dummy > played. See the analogy in bidding out of turn. The RHO has then the > opportunity to accept it (an he is the first one to make the decision to > accept it according to the law). So i would propose that the RHO of dummy > has the right to accept playing out of turn by playing a card or calling > the TD. I dont see an infringement of the laws by playing before PD played > a card. Dummy played and then it is his turn to play, whatever happened > before :) > L57A implies that it is his turn to play after partner plays, not after dummy plays: "When a defender...plays out of turn before his partner has played..." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 12:24:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 12:24:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from dynamite.com.au (m1.dynamite.com.au [203.17.154.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06931 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 12:24:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp167.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.23.182.47]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA07431; Tue, 25 May 1999 12:24:01 +1000 Message-ID: <003401bea655$a83921a0$591a25cb@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <001001bea5e3$4e9fb040$06b617cb@dynamite.com.au> Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 12:22:45 +1000 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 ; Bridge Laws Sent: 24 May 1999 22:45 Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: 24 May 1999 2:27 Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sun, 23 May 99 15:00 BST, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > wrote: > >I had always > >understood the spirit of L57C to be "once declarer has played from both > >hands either defender can consider it their turn to play" (ignoring the > >headings obviously). > > L57 is a law that tells us what to do after the irregularity of > playing out of turn. > > L57C tells us not to penalize if declarer has played from both hands. > > It does not say that the defender's play out of turn is no longer an > irregularity - on the contrary, the headline of L57C still uses the > word "irregularity". > > It says "is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner", > where it should have said "is allowed to play before his partner" if > that was the intention. > > There is nothing in L57C that cancels the obligation to play in turn. > I started this thread because I saw a difference between two cases. An intentional lead out of turn, because declarer had already seen dummy's cards, is not to be allowed, because the player does in fact commit an infraction. Agreed. So I proposed this topic because it is somewhat alike, and you are sauying it is completely alike. You state that he layer who intentionally plays before partner (to the same trick) is also committing an infraction. First of all I would like you to admit that this is a far lesser infraction. Indeed, play proceeds without any interference. The correct person is still on lead, etc. The only thing the player can gain by doing this, is transmit some information to his partner. Information which is IMO authorized. We agree that the infraction is without penalty (L57C). Does it remain an infraction nevertheless? You talk of "the obligation to play in turn". That obligation is put forward in L44B "each other player in turn plays a card". Notice that this is in the present tense, of which the preface says that it "establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalized". In fact the violation we are talking of is explicitely declared to be without penalty. OTOH, L72B2 states that "a player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed penalty he is willing to pay". Since this does not say "a player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if he is willing to pay the prescribed penalty", we must conclude that L72B2 is also applicable to infringements without penalty. I believe that makes moot the next question I was going to ask : "can something be an infringement of law if it is explicitely made without penalty". It seems the laws have covered this base already. So I will align myself to your view, Jesper, and no longer intentionally play in fourth seat when dummy does so. I may well do so ocasionally unintentionally from now on, just to teach dummies. I have resent this posting as it seems my messages were in HTML and could not be read. My apologies to all. Law 44B states that "each player in turn plays a card.." declarers RHO opponent has failed to do this (dummys card was not legally played 45D) therefore there is an infraction Law 57C says " A defender is not subject to penalty for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands..." 45D then says "If dummy places in in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick , and a defender may withdraw ( without penalty) a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it" There has still been an infraction (Law 44B), and although there is no penalty (Law 57C) 16C2 still applies "For the offending side, information from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the nonoffernding side is unauthorised." Therefore even if declarers RHO plays before his partner information from this play is unauthorised to LHO. Sean Mullamphy. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 15:31:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 15:31:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA07223 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 15:31:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([210.55.179.5]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990525053205.PCGM7623210.mta2-rme@default> for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 17:32:05 +1200 Message-ID: <000101bea670$31868500$08000003@default> From: "Bruce Owen" To: Subject: Vancouver appeal Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 17:33:28 +1200 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 Last month there was a lot of debate in this group on an appeal at the NABC teams event, appeal no 5 I think, surrounding inadvertent designation 45C4b.. I am using this appeal in an article I am submitting to our National magazine and find that my notes show only12 cards in norths hand. Does anyone still have the hand record of that appeal and can they confirm that Norths hand consisted of a 7 card club suit to the AK Bruce Owen From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 17:18:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 17:18:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pm06sm.pmm.cw.net (pm06sm.pmm.cw.net [208.159.98.155]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07530 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 17:17:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk (usr60-dialup116.mix1.Sacramento.cw.net [166.62.142.246]) by PM06SM.PMM.CW.NET (PMDF V5.2-29 #35324) with SMTP id <0FCA00KPZ1KTAO@PM06SM.PMM.CW.NET> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 May 1999 07:17:18 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 00:16:05 -0700 From: Chris Pisarra Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <004601bea67e$74b10180$f68e3ea6@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: <000101bea670$31868500$08000003@default> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There's a full article about it in the June ACBL Bulletin. The north hand holds the AK86532 of clubs. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Owen To: Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 10:33 PM Subject: Vancouver appeal > Last month there was a lot of debate in this group on an appeal at the NABC > teams event, appeal no 5 I think, surrounding inadvertent designation > 45C4b.. I am using this appeal in an article I am submitting to our National > magazine and find that my notes show only12 cards in norths hand. Does > anyone still have the hand record of that appeal and can they confirm that > Norths hand consisted of a 7 card club suit to the AK > Bruce Owen > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 18:52:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA07702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 18:52:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA07697 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 18:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA13701 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 May 1999 08:47:51 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 25 May 99 08:47 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? 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: <000c01bea603$21a31080$ec8d93c3@pacific> "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > > ++++ To be a psyche the call must be a surprise to partner. This is > not me speaking, this is Franklin and Kaplan. As much, they said, a > surprise to partner as to opponents. So it is not a psyche if opponents are no more surprised than partner? Playing with A.Stranger against two visiting Americans Mr Stranger chooses to psyche - I am less surprised than the opponents due to the different cultures and suddenly it is not a psyche? Perhaps they were not Americans, but relatively inexperienced players - does their lack of knowledge suddenly create a non psyche? Let us rather say that a psyche is a deliberate and gross misstatement and that it may be considered a CPU when partner has a better chance of detecting it than would a stranger of otherwise identical bridge talent sitting in Partner's chair *and* partner takes some action that protects against the possibility of a psyche. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 22:10:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 22:10:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08160 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 22:09:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA15438 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 08:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990525080807.0083aac0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 08:08:07 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal In-Reply-To: <000101bea670$31868500$08000003@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:33 PM 5/25/99 +1200, Bruce Owen wrote: >Last month there was a lot of debate in this group on an appeal at the NABC >teams event, appeal no 5 I think, surrounding inadvertent designation >45C4b.. I am using this appeal in an article I am submitting to our National >magazine and find that my notes show only12 cards in norths hand. Does >anyone still have the hand record of that appeal and can they confirm that >Norths hand consisted of a 7 card club suit to the AK >Bruce Owen The entire Appeal write-up is availabl ein the Friday Bulletin from Vancouver which you can find here: http://www.acbl.org/nabc/vancouver/db990326.htm If you're writing about the appeal you ought to have a copy of the write-up. The write-up contains all the hands. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 22:16:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 22:16:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08183 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 22:16:06 +1000 (EST) 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 IAA23920 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 08:29:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990525081627.006cf6d0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 08:16:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:36 PM 5/24/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: >I once heard a "strategic" bid as any psyche made by a very well known >player. Unfortunately in the conversation, it went completely over his head. >Come on, guys, playing this kind of bridge is not what the game is all about. It's not what the game is all about, and, here in North America at least, those who would like to see psychs eliminated entirely have successfully marginalized them. But during the so-called "golden age" of contract bridge, back in the days when the general public followed the results of major bridge events, psyching was a large part of what the game was about, a significant and highly visible aspect of the expert game. Coincidence? 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 May 25 23:34:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 23:34:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08378 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 23:34:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-228.uunet.be [194.7.13.228]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA27985 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 15:34:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 12:18:24 +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: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$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: > > Anton Witzen wrote: > > > > > well, the question is of course: is he paying out of turn after > dummy > > played. See the analogy in bidding out of turn. The RHO has then the > > opportunity to accept it (an he is the first one to make the > decision to > > accept it according to the law). So i would propose that the RHO of > dummy > > has the right to accept playing out of turn by playing a card or > calling > > the TD. I dont see an infringement of the laws by playing before PD > played > > a card. Dummy played and then it is his turn to play, whatever > happened > > before :) > > > L57A implies that it is his turn to play after partner plays, not > after dummy plays: "When a defender...plays out of turn before his > partner has played..." > No Marv, Anton is right. Thanks Anton. When a defender plays after dummy played out of turn, this is "in turn". So indeed L57 does not apply. Thanks again Anton. I will now again do as I did before. Luckily I did not play any tournaments in the meantime. Please Jesper, I allow you to tell me where Anton is wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 25 23:51:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 May 1999 23:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand.global.net.uk (sand.global.net.uk [194.126.82.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA08435 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 23:51:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from p84s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.133] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10mHbZ-0005uS-00; Tue, 25 May 1999 14:50:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bea6b5$4b0d3240$858993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 14:45:46 +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 Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 25 May 1999 10:30 Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? >In-Reply-To: <000c01bea603$21a31080$ec8d93c3@pacific> >"Grattan Endicott" wrote: >> >> ++++ To be a psyche the call must be a surprise to partner. This is >> not me speaking, this is Franklin and Kaplan. As much, they said, a >> surprise to partner as to opponents. > >So it is not a psyche if opponents are no more surprised than partner? +++ Did you stop reading at this point? ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 01:43:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 01:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA10946 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 01:43:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfcs04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.253] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10mJLx-0000fw-00; Tue, 25 May 1999 16:42:54 +0100 Message-ID: <000601bea6c4$f1052680$fd8493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Eric Landau" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion Group" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:38:42 +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 Discussion List Date: 25 May 1999 13:46 Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? >At 05:36 PM 5/24/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: > >>I once heard a "strategic" bid as any psyche made by a very well known >>player. Unfortunately in the conversation, it went completely over his head. >>Come on, guys, playing this kind of bridge is not what the game is all >about. > >It's not what the game is all about, and, here in North America at least, >those who would like to see psychs eliminated entirely have successfully >marginalized them. But during the so-called "golden age" of contract >bridge, back in the days when the general public followed the results of >major bridge events, psyching was a large part of what the game was about, >a significant and highly visible aspect of the expert game. Coincidence? > ++++ I am not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with Kojak. In Europe we have not encountered any great problem with psychics. We require that there shall be no prior understanding, no explicit discussion, no implicit understanding deriving from partnership practice or shared awareness of external factors not available to the opponents, and that after the psychic call the partner shall not take abnormal action that would cater for partner having psyched until the psyche is exposed by the development of the auction. In this latter connection the English guidance to Directors says that examples of auctions in which there is evidence that the last caller has a hand "materially different from that which the auction to date has suggested" include "(a) most auctions in which a player either passes when the partnership agreements require a bid, or bids when the partnership agreements require a redouble; (b) most auctions in which a player who has bid two or more suits, has been given preference by partner, has been doubled for penalties, and bids another suit". The other point made from time to time is that where an implicit understanding develops it *must* be disclosed to opponents even if the partnership is scrupuolous in taking no advantage of the information; the other side has a right to be in the picture since it may affect what they do. Subject to these considerations we are regularly reminded that "a psyche is a legitimate ploy so long as it contains the same element of surprise for partner as it does for the opponents". Is it really the case that North American attitudes differ from these? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 03:13:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:13:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11301 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:13:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.79]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 2413100 ; Tue, 25 May 1999 18:14:51 -0000 Message-ID: <001101bea6d1$9d34a000$4fb259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:10:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: magda.thain To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 24 May 1999 03:17 Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? >This reads like an example of 'partnership experience' to me. >mt >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael S. Dennis >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: 24 May 1999 00:05 >Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > > >> That South is forbidden from considering either the >>conditions preceding the psyche (such as the fact that he is barred from >>bidding), or partner's general tendency toward aggressiveness in evaluating >>the possibility of a psyche >> > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 03:17:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11327 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:17:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem92.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.92] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10mKpd-0004um-00; Tue, 25 May 1999 18:17:38 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 02:27:45 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "[There are] more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another." = Montaigne llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > Date: 24 May 1999 16:54 > > John R. Mayne wrote: > > [snip of good stuff] > ---------------- \x/ ----------------- Marvin:- > A better analogy is an ultra-light weak two bid. A number of local > pros violate their stated range frequently with clients, often with as > little as one queen. When the TD is called, they explain that the bid > was merely a psych. The TD nods sagely, and walks away. > +++ I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that the 'local pros' violate their agreements on Weak Twos so often that their partners cannot fail to be aware of it? Are you suggesting that the players concerned may have some discussion with their partners on the subject? You cannot psyche frequently, nor can you discuss psychics with partner, without creating an awareness that certain kinds of psychics are more likely to occur than others, and either way you then have a partnership understanding that will violate the law. I do not know how sound your evaluation is of what occurs; all I can say is that the way you write it makes it appear well beyond the edge. You make the case for draconian ACBL controls, and some tougher directors. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 03:18:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:18:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11326 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:17:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem92.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.92] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10mKpa-0004um-00; Tue, 25 May 1999 18:17:35 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 22:46:10 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "[There are] more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another." = Montaigne llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l ---------- > From: Steve Willner > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) > Date: 24 May 1999 18:29 > > > From: Jesper Dybdal > > There is nothing in L57C that cancels the obligation to play in turn. > > I tend to agree with the above, but I see how others could read it > differently. > > > If my interpretation of this is in accordance with the WBFLC's > > intentions, I suggest that the word "inadvertently" should be added > > before "playing before his partner" in the next revision of the laws. > > I agree with the sentiment to modify L57C, but please, please don't > introduce another law that requires judging intent. Either make it > legal for either defender to play, once declarer has played from both > hands, or clarify that it is still illegal and provide a penalty. (For > example, you might let declarer retract his play from the hand that > didn't lead.) But please don't bring in intent. ++++ Law 57C describes the premature play as an irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure - when declarer has played from both hands etc. But it is a deviation for which the player will not be penalized. He is thus licensed to do it without sanction and, in that state of the law, it could not be considered an impropriety. Inadvertency is not an issue. Laws 57A and 57B do not use the word 'irregularity' but treat the premature play as an infraction subject to penalty. The player who does it is described as an 'offender'. All infractions are irregularities. Not all irregularities are infractions. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 03:22:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:22:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11362 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:22:35 +1000 (EST) 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 NAA05498 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 13:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA04151 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 May 1999 13:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:22:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905251722.NAA04151@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's something I posted to RGB. The laws comments were based mainly on postings to BLML, but of course the obvious personal opinions are mine. Comments or corrections welcome. ----- L45C4b and the corresponding L25A for the auction seem to me two of the worst laws in the book precisely because they are so unclear. It doesn't help that 'inadvertent' has two similar but distinct meanings nor that mind reading is needed to determine whether an action qualifies for either one of them. If I may summarize the requirements for changing an action, as it appears the laws now stand: 1) The action must have been inadvertent at the time made (according to whichever definition you give 'inadvertent'), 2) the player taking the action must have attempted to change it, 3) there must have been no pause for thought between the player's noticing the inadvertent action and _initiating_ (not necessarily _completing_) the attempt to change, and 4) for a call (but not a play), the player's partner must not have called since. Vancouver Case 5 seems an excellent candidate for appeal to the National Authority (L93C) precisely because the controversy is mainly a matter of unclear law rather than fact or bridge judgment. Too bad no such appeal was lodged. I'll be quite interested to see the expert commentary on this case. ----- The two meanings of 'inadvertent' (from my old Merriam-Webster): 1) not turning the mind to a matter: inattentive 2) unintentional The example of passing partner's forcing 1C bid would be inadvertent under 1) but not under 2), so the definition adopted makes a practical difference. It seems 1) requires less mind reading than 2), and 1) seems more consistent with my understanding of the history of this law, but 2) seems to be more popular, at least on this list. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 03:26:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:26:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11379 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:26:25 +1000 (EST) 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 KAA22532 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 10:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008101bea6d3$b11f95a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:18:49 -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 Herman DeWael wrote: > When a defender plays after dummy played out of turn, this > is "in turn". So indeed L57 does not apply. > > Thanks again Anton. > > I will now again do as I did before. > > Luckily I did not play any tournaments in the meantime. > > Please Jesper, I allow you to tell me where Anton is wrong. > I'll butt in and say that L57C characterizes playing before partner's turn as an irregularity, even if declarer has played from both hands. If it's an irregularity, how can it be "his turn to play?" It is not his turn to play until partner has played, whether or not dummy has played. I see nothing in L57 that covers a situation in which a player follows *after* partner but *before* dummy plays, although I would suppose that any helpful information arising from that action would be UI. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 03:36:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:36:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11405 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:36:27 +1000 (EST) 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 KAA23709 for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 10:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008701bea6d5$1a756a60$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:29:09 -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: Tim West-meads > > Let us rather say that a psyche is a deliberate and gross misstatement and > that it may be considered a CPU when partner has a better chance of > detecting it than would a stranger of otherwise identical bridge talent > sitting in Partner's chair *and* partner takes some action that protects > against the possibility of a psyche. > Yes. 73E says that a deception is okay if it is *not protected* [emphasis mine] by concealed partnership understanding or experience. If we change the topic to other types of deception, such as falsecarding, the point becomes more clear. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 03:53:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:53:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11436 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 03:53:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip207.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.207]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990525175337.LDLC22252.fep4@ip207.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 19:53:37 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:53:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <374cdeb5.2988837@post12.tele.dk> References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id DAA11437 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 25 May 1999 12:18:24 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >"Marvin L. French" wrote: >> L57A implies that it is his turn to play after partner plays, not >> after dummy plays: "When a defender...plays out of turn before his >> partner has played..." > >No Marv, Anton is right. What exactly is wrong with Marv's point? >Please Jesper, I allow you to tell me where Anton is wrong. I'll try. There are several points: (a) Marv's point: if you are in turn, why is there a L57C at all? According to you and Anton, all it does is tell us that there is no penalty for playing in turn - that should not need a specific law! Note that the headline of L57C uses the word "Irregularity" about the play that you believe to be "in turn". And the wording would still be "is allowed to" rather than "is not subject to penalty for" if you were right. (b) Why should "in turn" mean "after RHO" rather than "after all the plays that should come before yours"? The definition of "turn" and "rotation" does not really help here. (c) Whatever definition of "turn" you like, surely there can be only _one_ player whose turn it is to play. It that is you, it cannot also be partner - so if you insist that it is your turn, then partner will be playing out of turn if he plays before you. So if you and Anton are right that you are in turn, then you _must_ play before partner is allowed to do so - you can't both be in turn. But that is ridiculous. However, it is strange that there is no law to deal with the original irregularity: declarer's play from both hands (I haven't been able to find a law about "Premature play by declarer"). That would be the law that would tell us whether the next hand is allowed to accept the POOT, as Anton suggests. But there is no such law, and therefore it is not allowed. Anton's analogy with the auction is not good, because during play we do not just play one card at a time in rotation until it somehow stops - the difference is that each trick needs exactly 4 cards, so just skipping somebody's turn is not possible during play as it is during the auction. If you could "accept" dummy's POOT and play your card, then how and when would it become partner's turn to play to that trick? There is a much closer analogy: when a defender plays (as opposed to leads) out of turn, declarer is not allowed to accept that play and just continue - why should defenders then be allowed to do so? Finally, it would not make sense to allow it. As Jens pointed out, L10 tells us that it is not the players' job to assess penalties. Declarer has committed a very minor infraction by playing too fast from dummy - an infraction that can never harm the opponents and sometimes will harm declarer himself. A few days ago you pointed out that defender's POOT here is only a minor infraction - but declarer's infraction is clearly even smaller, since he can never gain from it. Why in the world should that be penalized by allowing defenders to play in whatever order they like, getting a potentially important advantage from seeing partner's card? Nowhere else in the laws are deviations from correct procedure which can never gain penalized by giving the opponents an advantage. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 04:06:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 04:06:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@ns1.san.rr.com [204.210.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11464 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 04:06:43 +1000 (EST) 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 LAA27730; Tue, 25 May 1999 11:06:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008a01bea6d9$532c9fa0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Grattan" , References: Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 11:06:07 -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: Marvin L. French wrote: > > A better analogy is an ultra-light weak two bid. A number of local > > pros violate their stated range frequently with clients, often with as > > little as one queen. When the TD is called, they explain that the bid > > was merely a psych. The TD nods sagely, and walks away. > > > +++ I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting > that the 'local pros' violate their agreements on Weak Twos so > often that their partners cannot fail to be aware of it? Yes. > Are you suggesting that the players concerned may have some > discussion with their partners on the subject? No. > You cannot psyche frequently, nor can you discuss psychics > with partner, without creating an awareness that certain kinds of > psychics are more likely to occur than others, and either way you > then have a partnership understanding that will violate the law. Does that apply to other types of deception, such as falsecarding? 73E, which permits deception if it isn't protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience, doesn't seem to distinguish between psychs and other types of deception in bidding or play. > I do not know how sound your evaluation is of what occurs; > all I can say is that the way you write it makes it appear well > beyond the edge. You make the case for draconian ACBL > controls, and some tougher directors. The ACBL isn't clear about psych policy, from what I can find out. For instance, the regulations have a section entitled "PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR DIRECTOR ATTENTION." These include "tactical bids," such as lead-inhibiting calls, and "waiting bids," which are possibly deceptive bids made to mark time while partner describes his hand more clearly. It goes on to say, "Frequent use of tactics similar to these will develop an implicit partnership agreement which requires an Alert." Is it a coincidence that psychs of this nature are particularly popular with pros? Never have I heard an Alert in regard to them. TDs are tough on me, telling me (as they have) that if I psych once in a certain situation, it's okay but I can't make that psych again with that partner, ever. But then, I'm not a pro. I would just like to see ACBL policy stated more clearly and applied more consistently. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 07:19:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 07:19:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA11955 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 07:18:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip226.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.226]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990525211847.NNCK28514.fep1@ip226.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 25 May 1999 23:18:47 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 23:18:47 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <374e1322.2977942@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id HAA11957 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 24 May 1999 22:46:10 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++++ Law 57C describes the premature play as an irregularity - a deviation >from correct procedure - when declarer has played from both hands etc. >But it is a deviation for which the player will not be penalized. He is >thus licensed to do it without sanction and, in that state of the law, it >could not be considered an impropriety. Have I understood this correctly that you agree with Herman that it is perfectly correct for a defender to play out of turn in order to deliberately take advantage of declarer's playing from both hands before any defender has played? If this is the intent of the WBFLC (which I hope it is not), should not L57C say so explicitly, saying that the defender may do so, rather than just stating that there is no penalty? What happened to L72B2? The concept of an action that is not legal, but which will not be penalized if taken by somebody who does not realize that the situation is one in which that action is illegal, is an important one, and IMO L57C is a perfect example of that. Just as it is not legal to revoke even when you know that you will get no more tricks - even though it will not be penalized. > All infractions are irregularities. Agreed. >Not all irregularities are >infractions. Since "infraction" is not defined in the "Definitions" section, I find it difficult to understand such a distinction or use it for any practical purpose. In my (imperfect) understanding of the English language an "infraction of law" is any action that is contrary to the law. As far as I can see, this must include any deviation from the correct procedure defined in the laws, and is thus synonymous with the definition of "irregularity" given in the laws. But no matter how we define "infraction", it seems that we agree that defender's play out of turn after declarer's play from both hands is an irregularity. I fail to understand how it can ever be legal to deliberately commit an irregularity with the purpose of gaining an advantage - that is the whole point of L72B2. I find L57C perfectly reasonable as I read it: of course we do not want to penalize a defender who is led to commit an irregularity because declarer commits an irregularity - but that should not mean that a defender who has seen and recognized declarer's irregularity and has noticed that his partner has not played yet should be allowed to deliberately play out of turn. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 08:51:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 08:51:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.a2000.nl (farida.a2000.nl [62.108.1.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12107 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 08:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10mQ2Y-0000c2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 00:51:18 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990526004703.00af0d60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 00:47:03 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) In-Reply-To: <374cdeb5.2988837@post12.tele.dk> References: <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 19:53 25-05-99 +0200, you wrote: >On Tue, 25 May 1999 12:18:24 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >>"Marvin L. French" wrote: >>> L57A implies that it is his turn to play after partner plays, not >>> after dummy plays: "When a defender...plays out of turn before his >>> partner has played..." >> >>No Marv, Anton is right. > >What exactly is wrong with Marv's point? > >>Please Jesper, I allow you to tell me where Anton is wrong. > >I'll try. There are several points: > >(a) Marv's point: if you are in turn, why is there a L57C at all? >According to you and Anton, all it does is tell us that there is no >penalty for playing in turn - that should not need a specific law! >Note that the headline of L57C uses the word "Irregularity" about the >play that you believe to be "in turn". And the wording would still be >"is allowed to" rather than "is not subject to penalty for" if you >were right. > >(b) Why should "in turn" mean "after RHO" rather than "after all the >plays that should come before yours"? The definition of "turn" and >"rotation" does not really help here. > >(c) Whatever definition of "turn" you like, surely there can be only >_one_ player whose turn it is to play. It that is you, it cannot also >be partner - so if you insist that it is your turn, then partner will >be playing out of turn if he plays before you. So if you and Anton >are right that you are in turn, then you _must_ play before partner is >allowed to do so - you can't both be in turn. But that is ridiculous. > >However, it is strange that there is no law to deal with the original >irregularity: declarer's play from both hands (I haven't been able to >find a law about "Premature play by declarer"). That would be the law >that would tell us whether the next hand is allowed to accept the >POOT, as Anton suggests. But there is no such law, and therefore it >is not allowed. > >Anton's analogy with the auction is not good, because during play we >do not just play one card at a time in rotation until it somehow stops >- the difference is that each trick needs exactly 4 cards, so just >skipping somebody's turn is not possible during play as it is during >the auction. If you could "accept" dummy's POOT and play your card, >then how and when would it become partner's turn to play to that >trick? > >There is a much closer analogy: when a defender plays (as opposed to >leads) out of turn, declarer is not allowed to accept that play and >just continue - why should defenders then be allowed to do so? > and a lead out of turn then??? it seems rather legal for declarer to accept it. Either at start or later in the game. >Finally, it would not make sense to allow it. As Jens pointed out, >L10 tells us that it is not the players' job to assess penalties. >Declarer has committed a very minor infraction by playing too fast >from dummy - an infraction that can never harm the opponents and >sometimes will harm declarer himself. A few days ago you pointed out >that defender's POOT here is only a minor infraction - but declarer's >infraction is clearly even smaller, since he can never gain from it. >Why in the world should that be penalized by allowing defenders to >play in whatever order they like, getting a potentially important >advantage from seeing partner's card? Nowhere else in the laws are >deviations from correct procedure which can never gain penalized by >giving the opponents an advantage. >-- >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . >http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 09:21:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:21:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12254 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:21:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA29767 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:21:47 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990526092237.00a21c90@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:22:38 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Annouce: BLML Archives on the Web Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All Following Bruce's query yesterday for an old posting I thought I would open up a trial of a web interface to the BLML archives. This is a trial as part of preparations for moving to a new server, and uses a 3rd party tool (lwgate) which seems pretty cool. While it has some disadvantages (browsing is within individual monthly archives) it also has some advantages (it works). I'd appreciate any comments on this service. If you have any suggestions of other packages worth trying please let me know. The archives are currently available at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ Please bear in mind that the host this is running on is now very old and slow - the new server will be an improvement. Cheers, Markus P.S. This should also help our feline and canine friends whose servants lose the important lists sometimes.... 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 Wed May 26 10:40:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:40:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12497 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem66.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.194] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10mRjf-0005kW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 01:39:56 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 21:50:58 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "[There are] more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another." = Montaigne llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) > Date: 25 May 1999 18:53 > > On Tue, 25 May 1999 12:18:24 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >"Marvin L. French" wrote: > >> L57A implies that it is his turn to play after partner plays, not > >> after dummy plays: "When a defender...plays out of turn before his > >> partner has played..." > > ------------- \x/ -------------- > > Jesper: > However, it is strange that there is no law to deal with the original > irregularity: declarer's play from both hands (I haven't been able to > find a law about "Premature play by declarer"). That would be the law > that would tell us whether the next hand is allowed to accept the > POOT, as Anton suggests. But there is no such law, and therefore it > is not allowed. > --------------- \x/ ------------- ++++ Hmmm...... Law 57 seems to be clear in recognizing that it does happen that declarer will play from both hands etc. and it protects defender from being penalized if he also then plays prematurely. I think an 'equalizing' process was intended and I do not believe it was contemplated for one moment that sight of the premature card would give UI. When the law was composed I do not imagine anyone envisaged the advent of the internet with its swarms of semanticians. I think the view was that if declarer chose to open the gate the players should just get on with the game and no skin off anyone's nose - and, incidentally, that is what I think should happen as things are. Later on we might put an extra screw in the hinge of the gate. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 11:23:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 11:23:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12611 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 11:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem123.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.251] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10mSP6-0006JR-00; Wed, 26 May 1999 02:22:45 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 02:20:40 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "[There are] more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another." = Montaigne llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) > Date: 25 May 1999 22:18 > > On Mon, 24 May 1999 22:46:10 +0100, "Grattan" > wrote: > ------------ \x/ ------------ > > > Have I understood this correctly that you agree with Herman that it is > perfectly correct for a defender to play out of turn in order to > deliberately take advantage of declarer's playing from both hands > before any defender has played? If this is the intent of the WBFLC > (which I hope it is not), should not L57C say so explicitly, saying > that the defender may do so, rather than just stating that there is no > penalty? +++ I would not presume to say where the WBFLC would stand today until it has looked at the question. I have sent to blml a little earlier a comment on the drafting of this law. The device of allowing something to happen by saying it will not be penalized is not strange to EK's approach and I do think that is where he stood. Whether the drafting "should" have given explicit permission for the action in wording the law, if that was the intention, depends where you stand in relation to EK's attitude and use of language. (Personally I like precise laws even if this means extra words - and even if to be secure the language is legalistic - and I am thinking it becomes imperative in an age of semanticism.) +++ > > What happened to L72B2? +++ It is still in the book. It depends on the view you take of 57C whether there is relief in this from penalty under L72B2. +++ > > The concept of an action that is not legal, but which will not be > penalized if taken by somebody who does not realize that the situation > is one in which that action is illegal, is an important one, +++ I distrust your instincts. It appears to me that no distinction should be made in applying a prescribed penalty by reference to a judgement whether the player was or was not ignorant of the relevant law. I do not see anything in Law 57C which justifies an assumption that it is there to cater for a player's ignorance of the law. +++ > > >Not all irregularities are > >infractions. > > Since "infraction" is not defined in the "Definitions" section, I find > it difficult to understand such a distinction or use it for any > practical purpose. > +++ The distinction is made in the 'Scope and Interpretation of the Laws'. +++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 11:47:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 11:47:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12694 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 11:47:16 +1000 (EST) 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 10mSmR-000Lca-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 01:46:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 01:13:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990525081627.006cf6d0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990525081627.006cf6d0@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 05:36 PM 5/24/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: > >>I once heard a "strategic" bid as any psyche made by a very well known >>player. Unfortunately in the conversation, it went completely over his head. >>Come on, guys, playing this kind of bridge is not what the game is all >about. I think I'm saddened that it appears that Kojak feels that psyches are not part of bridge. To me a well turned psyche (good or bad result doesn't matter) is a thing of joy to all players at the table. Cheers John > >It's not what the game is all about, and, here in North America at least, >those who would like to see psychs eliminated entirely have successfully >marginalized them. But during the so-called "golden age" of contract >bridge, back in the days when the general public followed the results of >major bridge events, psyching was a large part of what the game was about, >a significant and highly visible aspect of the expert game. Coincidence? > > >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 > -- 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 May 26 13:23:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA12966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 13:23:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12958 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 13:22:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (3com-228.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.228]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA24369; Tue, 25 May 1999 23:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <374B6A93.197B0EB6@pinehurst.net> Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 23:29:24 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <008101bea6d3$b11f95a0$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: > Herman DeWael wrote: > > >snipped > > I see nothing in L57 that covers a situation in which a player follows > *after* partner but *before* dummy plays, although I would suppose > that any helpful information arising from that action would be UI. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Doesn't Law 57A cover this situation very nicely???? Nancy From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 18:37:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 18:37:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13548 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 18:37:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-1-08.ac.net [205.138.47.37]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id EAA26218 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 04:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905260837.EAA26218@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 04:43:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: 1C - 2C - alert or no? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Simple question... ACBL land... W N E S 1C* 2C * = Precision Alert required? for what meanings? thanks Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 18:48:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA13611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 18:48:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13605 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 18:48:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA03346 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:47:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 26 May 99 09:47 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? 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: <000f01bea6b5$4b0d3240$858993c3@pacific> "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > >> > >> ++++ To be a psyche the call must be a surprise to partner. This is > >> not me speaking, this is Franklin and Kaplan. As much, they said, a > >> surprise to partner as to opponents. > > > >So it is not a psyche if opponents are no more surprised than partner? > > +++ Did you stop reading at this point? ~ Grattan ~ +++ > No. I just didn't understand why opponent's surprise or otherwise had anything to do with whether or not a psyche was a psyche. Four decent players sit down at a table and (nv vs v) the bidding goes p-p-1s- none of the players should be surprised if the 1S bid lacks values/length for a 1S bid and all, IMO, are entitled to bid cautiously in an attempt to find out. What should matter is whether partner's extra knowledge of *you* makes the bid less surprising/more readily detectable to *him* than would otherwise be the case. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 19:35:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13726 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:34:51 +1000 (EST) 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 10ma56-000MUR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:34:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:58:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mess after Misbid References: <3.0.6.32.19990512155344.007b2c30@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990512155344.007b2c30@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Remark: There is no place here for a AC to adjust the score doing equity. >It seems quite clear what would have happened with correct explanation. Most people who have posted have ruled that 4S would not be bid: good. But they have then disagreed on the actual adjustment: 1100, 1400, 1700. This seems a good time to apply L12C3: perhaps one-third each of 1100, 1400 and 1700. -- 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 May 26 19:35:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13724 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:34:47 +1000 (EST) 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 10ma53-0005Vm-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:34:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:38:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Play of a board against wrong pair References: <000401be9d47$0f97d480$cf8993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000401be9d47$0f97d480$cf8993c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+++ Well, that's your opinion, my friend; as far as I am concerned >one of the conditions of play is that the right pairs should be at the >table When Laws are not totally clear we have to interpret them sensibly using the information available, and that includes looking at not just what is written, but also the rest of the Law, and also what is "obvious". If we go down your road we are making a stationary pair responsible for their opponents not smoking, knowing the alert rules, sitting facing the table, not putting a cat on the table and so on. I don't believe it. The general conditions of play are the responsibility of the Director, not of other players. Furthermore, your interpretation makes *both* headings incorrect. Yes, we all know that headings are not part of the Law, but they are clearly pointers to when a Law should be used. The heading for L7 is "CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS" and that hardly includes whether the opponents are the correct ones. The heading for L7D is "Responsibility for Procedures" and again it is not a procedure whether the opponents are correct. It is not logical nor sensible to extend this Law to make a stationary pair responsible for anything the opponents might do. That is properly the responsibility of the Director, and I believe the correct interpretation of this Law is that a stationary pair is primarily responsible for the conditions of play at the table as far as the control of the board and the cards is concerned. -- 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 May 26 19:35:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13734 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:34:56 +1000 (EST) 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 10ma56-0005Vm-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:34:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:09:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bobby Goldman deceased References: <199905170039.UAA19168@mime2.prodigy.com> In-Reply-To: <199905170039.UAA19168@mime2.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: >-- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- > >Sunday 5/16/99 > >Information appeared on Usenet today that Bobby Goldman >has passed away from a heart attack. I took the >opportunity to confirm the information before >passing it onto the list. > >It says that he went into unconsciousness and never >awoke. I am sure ACBL Headquarters will hear more >tomorrow. > >This is a shocker to all of us. > >-Chyah Burghard While I had never met Bobby, I was beginning to have fairly regular email contact, plus clashes on the Laws on two newsgroups. He clearly was a man of strong opinions, very fair, and was helpful. I had been looking forward to meeting him. I think this is a great loss to Bridge. -- 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 May 26 19:35:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13731 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:34:53 +1000 (EST) 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 10ma56-000MUQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:34:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:17:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Thoughts about thoughts. 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: >In article 04.core.theplanet.net>, Grattan writes >>Grattan >>----------------------------------------------------------------- >> " Everything should be made as simple as >> possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] >>llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll >>lllllllllllllllllllllll >> >>+++ In the absence of David here is a stop gap example >>of a ruling from the eight teams final of a teams >>championship. (Crockfords Cup Final, May 1999) >> >> K 8 4 >> K Q 5 >> J 9 2 >> K 7 5 2 >>10 2 J 9 6 >>7 6 3 J 9 8 4 >>A Q 6 4 K 5 3 >>A Q 10 3 9 8 4 >> A Q 7 5 3 >> A 10 2 >> 10 8 7 >> J 6 >> >>Love all. Dealer West. >>Auction: >> West >> 1NT all pass. >> >>When dummy was faced North called the TD and asked to reserve >>his rights since East had taken unduly long to consider a Pass when >>he "had nothing to think about". It was agreed that East had >>considered for longer than normal before passing. >> >At this level East doesn't need to think whether he'd Stayman or not, he >*knows* whether he Staymans with this hand. I would have adjusted to 2S. >Law 73F2 Hmmmm. I never like arguments for not thinking based on whether the situation has arisen before. Every hand is different, and the last flat five-count might have had four clubs rather than four hearts, thus slightly reducing the possibility of improving the score. I think the word "unduly" is critical. There is a bridge reason for a short pause, and I doubt South would have been affected thereby. A long pause seems to me to come under L73F2. Yes, what I am saying is that there was a "demonstrable bridge reason" for a short pause, but not for a long 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 May 26 19:35:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13733 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:34:56 +1000 (EST) 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 10ma53-000MUQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:34:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:51:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling References: <01BE9E23.68613E80@har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <01BE9E23.68613E80@har-pa1-10.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > As you know I do not view this as a psychic auction. But the point you >raise is an interesting one and may deserve clarification for lesser lights >such as this writer. :-) > > I have had it hammered into me on this list that an ArtAdj score is >illegal except when a result cannot be obtained through play. It has been >stated in past that when a result has indeed been obtained through play an >ArtAdj score would thus be wrong. I believe that you are saying that when a >problem in the auction so muddies the waters that it would be difficult to >determine what might have happened absent the offense then 12A2 may apply >after all. > > I think it may be important to stress that we should not fall back on >this logic every time an ArtAss score would take a little time and effort >by the TD (as seems to be the flaw in some ACBL jurisdictions). I would >hope that if applied at all this logic would be used in only the rarest and >most extreme cases. In England/Wales as has been explained before we use this logic to give ArtASs in three situations: fielded psyches, fielded misbids, and use of illegal conventions. The logic for this is as Grattan has explained. But more importantly we are not giving TDs a random power to give ArtASs whenever they feel like: the English L&EC [the Welsh L&EC concurring] has defined the areas that an ArtAS shall be given. You might like to read an article on the subject on my Lawspage: Adjustments for fielding by Jesper Dybdal, Naerum, Denmark, and David Stevenson http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/psych3.htm -- 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 May 26 19:35:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13747 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:01 +1000 (EST) 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 10ma53-000MUP-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:34:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:41:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: An illegal (?) ruling References: <8bd1fadb.2469f0d6@aol.com> <37394D9C.F8D51CE5@village.uunet.be> <7or$LFAIFWO3EwQR@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <37398362.C8450112@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37398362.C8450112@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: >> >RCraigH@aol.com wrote: >> >> >> Would one consider AKxx AKQxx Ax xx a psych? It is further removed from >the >> >> definition of flannery than the example hand. It is five HCP points >removed, >> >> while the example hand is two HCP removed. >> >> >That is not a psych either, that is misinformation pure and >> >simple. >> >> If the pair concerned play 2D as 11-15, and they open the above hand >> with 2D, then they have psyched. It is a gross distortion of the values >> promised. >> > >You misunderstood me : > >If a pair open the above hand 2Di, explained to opponents as >Flannery, and explained to director as a psyche, then I >choose not to believe them if I know that this player also >plays some system on which that hand is opened 2Di >systemically. > >A psych is a gross and DELIBERATE misstatement. > >I would not believe the case above, would you ? > I have insufficient information. My question at the table would be "Why did you open 2D?". My beliefs would depend on the response to that question and other questions. But I agree it is unlikely to be a psyche. -- 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 May 26 19:35:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13752 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:35:04 +1000 (EST) 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 10ma5B-000MUQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:34:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:26:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Master Points - Aims , "profits" , methods . References: <3747AB0B.934AF0EF@internet-zahav.net> In-Reply-To: <3747AB0B.934AF0EF@internet-zahav.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dany Haimovici wrote: >Dear Friends > >A group of TDs here wonders about the "Theory of Master points". > >It is clear that there is a need to "classify" the players in >a known way , but this is not enough . >I don't want to express now MHO - anyway we would like to >know your opinions about the aims , goals , "profits" and the use of >the MP . If you can also indicate the webs of your national federations >where this theory appears (if at all.....) we will be very thankfully . The aim of masterpoints is to offer an acceptable scoring method for people that they will enjoy and will encourage them to play in competitions. There will always be a minority of people who want masterpoints to be "fair". Ignore them: they are a very dangerous minority and their opinions run counter to the good of the game. -- 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 May 26 20:36:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:36:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13950 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:36:46 +1000 (EST) 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 10mb2w-000DVJ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:36:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:10:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: a lead from "wrong" hand References: <3.0.16.19990518201040.3aff5974@pop3.iag.net> <37429073.EE43CFEB@village.uunet.be> <374ae01e.3902341@post12.tele.dk> <3743D6E0.441DE388@village.uunet.be> <3746c424.2661497@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <3746c424.2661497@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >>Well, West's first call is canceled (L17D), West's second >>call is canceled (L17D), ... need I go on ? >Yes, it might seem so. And North (LHO) is required to repeat his call >after a call that West has made.. > >But what about South and East and their calls? Is it not strange that >L17D gives no hint as to whether their calls are cancelled and whether >they have to repeat their calls? > >It seems ridiculous to me to require North to repeat his calls and not >require South and East to do the same; yet L17D does not mention South >and East at all. > >The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the author of L17D >had not imagined the situation where not only the offender (West), but >also his partner has called. L17D is simply not intended for this >situation. It is only intended for the situation where South and East >have made no calls after West's first call; otherwise, it would have >told us what to do with those calls. As far as authorship is concerned, the history of this Law may explain. It was still being discussed and was amended *after* the "Final Draft" of the 1997 Laws! I believe that eventually it was not sorted out satisfactorily. Presumably it will be sorted out in 2007, and moved to its correct place as L23. However, knowing why it is confusing does not necessarily help. >L17D does not authorize us to cancel East's and South's calls or to >require them to repeat those calls. > >So I think that the only part of L17D we can use here is its general >attitude. And its general attitude is clearly (to me) that when the >situation is too complicated to be solved by letting the offender >repeat his (one) call, then an artificial score is to be assigned. > >Since our situation is more complicated than the ones L17D consider, I >would therefore assign an artificial score. So would I on the actual hand, but.... I agree with Herman's reading of the Law, and I might allow it to be replayed after [say] two rounds of bidding: I believe the opening lead makes it impossible. If the partner had been on lead.... However, I would not be averse to an interpretation that it only applies after one round otherwise an ArtAS should be given. I just feel that other interpretations are possible. -- 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 May 26 20:36:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:36:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13947 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:36:45 +1000 (EST) 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 10mb30-000Ng4-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:36:32 +0000 Message-ID: <$KfC1xAGZ8S3EwTo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:00:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Where is the claim? References: <3742C8B3.3DC79B47@meteo.fr> <199905191613.MAA10055@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <199905191613.MAA10055@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: >1. Declarer was Edgar Kaplan playing in the final of a major event. >Don't recall who the opposition was, but it was one of the elite >American pairs. And he was playing a grand. You can believe that he >was wide awake on this one. > >What he said (after playing a top Diamond) was (almost a direct quote) >If diamonds are 3-2, I'm solid. > >Silence. > >So he was trying to achieve exactly what you said above. > >> Obviously this "partial" claim is not allowed by the laws and we >> wonder how harsh a TD should be with it. > >Why did he make this "partial claim"? They'd received time warnings >and he was trying to speed things up. As an excuse for trying to gain an unfair advantage on a hand I am not overly impressed. >Kaplan wrote a fair amount about the hand. His opposition never felt >damaged - at least I've never heard anything to indicate that they >did. But then they won the match and that'll heal a lot. > >Kaplan felt that after making the statement that he had made, a >finesse after his opponent showed in would be unethical - but >*perhaps* not illegal. > >He had no doubt that if the suit had been breaking, they'd have >conceded. Thus it would be clearly correct to finesse (and he >felt that if this finesse lost when they hadn't conceded it >would serve him right. They would be within their rights to decline >to concede.) > >I think context matters. If I'd made a statement like Kaplan's, I'd >expect to be ruled down 1. I don't know how I feel about a different >ruling for world class players. I could live with a blanket "you >claimed. Incomplete statement." Standard ruling (which in this case >should I think be down 1) > >Worth noting though. There never was a director call or protest. Perhaps because it was Kaplan? OK, let me get this straight. Next time I am in a grand slam with AJT9 opposite K8xxx, my correct line is to say "I am making this if the trumps are 2-2. Silence. Now I cash the ace and run the jack. This is a 76% line [oppos concede if the trumps are 2-2, 52%, and I make in half the other cases when I guess where the length is correctly. This seems an improvement on playing for the drop [52%] or finessing some way [50%]. Before all you mathematicians get going, I know my figures are too low because of singleton queens and showing out, but the principle is there. Is this the way to play bridge? No, it is not. It is an irregularity, and I just rule one down under L72B1 unless there is specifically a singleton queen. I also apply a fairly large PP. OK, I know the Kaplan hand was not nearly that bad, but it does leave a nasty taste in the mouth. Anyway, I think the Kaplan case and the one that started this thread are simple: declarer has suggested play should be curtailed, so he has claimed. -- 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 May 26 20:36:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:36:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13945 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:36:43 +1000 (EST) 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 10mb2w-000DVK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:36:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:35:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1C - 2C - alert or no? References: <199905260837.EAA26218@primus.ac.net> In-Reply-To: <199905260837.EAA26218@primus.ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >Simple question... > >ACBL land... > >W N E S >1C* 2C >* = Precision > >Alert required? for what meanings? Having read the ACBL Alert Chart, it seems to me that an alert is required if 2C is not natural, ie it does not show four or more clubs. Unusual overcalls, including the tendency to overcall at the two level frequently with a suit of fewer than five cards or with less than two- over-one values (approximately 10HCP), must be Alerted. Furthermore, light overcalls seem to need an alert. -- 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 May 26 20:36:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA13966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:36:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA13946 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:36:44 +1000 (EST) 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 10mb2w-000Nfa-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:36:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:17:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: a lead from "wrong" hand References: <199905191628.MAA29522@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199905191628.MAA29522@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Is there any protection if NS have bid a spectacularly good contract >that the rest of the field won't find? L12C1 seems to leave room >to award them more than 60% (and the OS less). Should that be >applied? What I'd like to do is give them no less than the score >that would have been assigned if we had used L12C2 at the point of >the opening lead, but I'm not sure that's legal. L12C1 has a reference to L88, and I believe it is a normal interpretation as a result that the 'at least 60%' merely means that L88 applies, ie that it is more than 60% in pairs if the pair's session score is higher. The reference to average-minus was discussed in Lille, and the result was: 4: Consideration was given to the meaning of 'average minus' where used in Law 12C1. Having debated the options, the Committee held that 'average minus' means the player's session percentage or 40% whichever is the lower. [See http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm] I do not believe that L12C1 can be used to give better scores than 60% for A+ or worse scores than 40% for A- at the TD's or AC's judgement. -- 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 May 26 20:45:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:45:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14008 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 20:45:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 26 May 1999 06:43:56 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199905260837.EAA26218@primus.ac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 06:45:51 -0400 To: Linda Trent From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: 1C - 2C - alert or no? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Simple question... > >ACBL land... > >W N E S >1C* 2C >* = Precision > >Alert required? for what meanings? If 2C is natural, no alert. If it's conventional (any meaning) it's alertable. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN0vRWr2UW3au93vOEQJ0+QCfWwLhmJ+p2P1bCSYOfRMn3mGo2tkAn3nJ 3Cju9hVKYSWQEjlIyiRgU7LK =BpKJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 22:02:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:02:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14188 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:02:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-250.uunet.be [194.7.9.250]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15698 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:01:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374BC4D3.FF63DC4B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:54:27 +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: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <374e1322.2977942@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Have I understood this correctly that you agree with Herman that it is > perfectly correct for a defender to play out of turn in order to > deliberately take advantage of declarer's playing from both hands > before any defender has played? If this is the intent of the WBFLC > (which I hope it is not), should not L57C say so explicitly, saying > that the defender may do so, rather than just stating that there is no > penalty? > > What happened to L72B2? > > The concept of an action that is not legal, but which will not be > penalized if taken by somebody who does not realize that the situation > is one in which that action is illegal, is an important one, and IMO > L57C is a perfect example of that. Just as it is not legal to revoke > even when you know that you will get no more tricks - even though it > will not be penalized. > > > I find L57C perfectly reasonable as I read it: of course we do not > want to penalize a defender who is led to commit an irregularity > because declarer commits an irregularity - but that should not mean > that a defender who has seen and recognized declarer's irregularity > and has noticed that his partner has not played yet should be allowed > to deliberately play out of turn. But by doing so you are laying a concept of intent in the Laws, something we have carefully avoided. Why should we allow a careless defender more than a careful one ? We are now in the area of "how we should like the Laws to be" rather than "how we think the Laws are", but that is an interesting point as well. If some (irregularity) carries no penalty, then why should we disallow it nevertheless ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 22:02:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:02:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14187 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:01:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-250.uunet.be [194.7.9.250]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA15688 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:01:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374BC385.EF75946C@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:48:53 +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: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <374cdeb5.2988837@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe this matter settled by Grattan's intervention, but would like to comment on the last paragraph of what Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Finally, it would not make sense to allow it. As Jens pointed out, > L10 tells us that it is not the players' job to assess penalties. > Declarer has committed a very minor infraction by playing too fast > from dummy - an infraction that can never harm the opponents and > sometimes will harm declarer himself. A few days ago you pointed out > that defender's POOT here is only a minor infraction - but declarer's > infraction is clearly even smaller, since he can never gain from it. > Why in the world should that be penalized by allowing defenders to > play in whatever order they like, getting a potentially important > advantage from seeing partner's card? Nowhere else in the laws are > deviations from correct procedure which can never gain penalized by > giving the opponents an advantage. You say that declarer makes a minor mistake, which goes slightly unpunished, and you ask why it then should be punished. Actually You say it should not be punished because it is not punished. Logical error. I happen to think it is a minor mistake which can be punished severely. Why should a deviation from correct procedure go unpunished ? And whyever should a defender give more attention to the correct procedure than a dummy, whose sole duty at the table might well be to give attention to correct procedure - he can't do anything else in fact. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 22:09:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:09:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14250 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:09:18 +1000 (EST) 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 IAA26200 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 08:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990526080934.006d48a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:09:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <000601bea6c4$f1052680$fd8493c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:38 PM 5/25/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > Subject to these considerations we are regularly reminded that "a >psyche is a legitimate ploy so long as it contains the same element of >surprise for partner as it does for the opponents". > > Is it really the case that North American attitudes differ from >these? There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North American bridge-playing population that a psych is never a legitimate ploy. They see the protected status of psychs (per L40A) as a "loophole" of which only the somewhat unscrupulous would take advantage, and would ban them entirely if the laws allowed. 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 May 26 22:28:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:28:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14308 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:28:35 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (3945) by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id iSVRa15511; Wed, 26 May 1999 08:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <89f549e8.247d426c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:26:20 EDT Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? To: john@probst.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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/25/99 9:49:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > I think I'm saddened that it appears that Kojak feels that psyches are > not part of bridge. To me a well turned psyche (good or bad result > doesn't matter) is a thing of joy to all players at the table. I am not at all against psychic bids. I am against extending them into partnership agreements. It is my position that Law 40A specifically permits psychics, and I am for that. My objection is to their, to me, devious use by agreement couched in the terms of ".......my partner has been known to psyche in these circumstances, and therefor my bidding may be affected by that knowledge..." Reading a psychic bid for that reason is against the Law IMO. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 22:38:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:38:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA14338 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:38:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from p9es10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.159] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10mcwO-0007me-00; Wed, 26 May 1999 13:37:48 +0100 Message-ID: <001101bea774$3e5734a0$9f8a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Richard Bley" Subject: Re: Thoughts about thoughts. Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:34:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Date: 17 May 1999 08:43 Subject: Re: Thoughts about thoughts. At 23:04 16.05.99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >Grattan >----------------------------------------------------------------- > " Everything should be made as simple as > possible, but not simpler." [Albert Einstein] ............................................................................... .. > >+++ In the absence of David here is a stop gap example >of a ruling from the eight teams final of a teams >championship. (Crockfords Cup Final, May 1999) The absence of David is perhaps the reason for the quietness of this list... ;-) ++++++++ 26 May 1999 : Does anyone get the feeling the silence has been shattered??? +++++++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 23:31:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:31:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14542 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:31:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.43.154]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990526133036.EWZQ25179@default> for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 13:30:36 +0000 Message-ID: <00bd01bea77b$d51e47a0$544e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990526080934.006d48a4@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:29:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau > There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North American > bridge-playing population that a psych is never a legitimate ploy. They > see the protected status of psychs (per L40A) as a "loophole" of which only > the somewhat unscrupulous would take advantage, and would ban them entirely > if the laws allowed. I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there is a failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and a tactical call within a large segment of the North American contingient. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 26 23:33:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:33:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA14561 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:32:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (actually host elios.maths.bris.ac.uk) by dirc.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV (PP) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:32:16 +0100 Received: from maths-pc84.maths.bris.ac.uk (pc84 [137.222.80.126]) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA25761 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:31:44 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <$KfC1xAGZ8S3EwTo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:28:43 +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: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >1. Declarer was Edgar Kaplan playing in the final of a major event. > >Don't recall who the opposition was, but it was one of the elite > >American pairs. And he was playing a grand. You can believe that he > >was wide awake on this one. > > > >What he said (after playing a top Diamond) was (almost a direct quote) > >If diamonds are 3-2, I'm solid. > > OK, let me get this straight. Next time I am in a grand slam with > AJT9 opposite K8xxx, my correct line is to say "I am making this if the > trumps are 2-2. Silence. Now I cash the ace and run the jack. This is > a 76% line [oppos concede if the trumps are 2-2, 52%, and I make in half > the other cases when I guess where the length is correctly. This seems > an improvement on playing for the drop [52%] or finessing some way > [50%]. [snip] > Is this the way to play bridge? No, it is not. It is an > irregularity, and I just rule one down under L72B1 unless there is > specifically a singleton queen. I also apply a fairly large PP. Unless I completely missed the point of what Kaplan did, this is not even close to that case. In your example, declarer lies (when he says "I'm making this if trumps are 2-2"). I don't think anybody has suggested that Kaplan was lying. That makes a huge ethical difference. Jeremy. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 00:04:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA14652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:04:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14647 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:04:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <4072-21886>; Wed, 26 May 1999 16:02:52 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA01894 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 16:01:42 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: 1C - 2C - alert or no? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:00:08 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F38C@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A0244688374901DA@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >Simple question... > >ACBL land... > >W N E S >1C* 2C >* = Precision > >Alert required? for what meanings? If 2C means clubs, no alert is required, unless it is very unusual to have 2C mean clubs. If 2C means something else, alert. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 00:22:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:22:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA16961 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:22:28 +1000 (EST) 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, 26 May 1999 15:22:16 +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 PAA26577 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 15:21:54 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: [BridgeForum] murky bidding In-Reply-To: <01bea782$b8d0eec0$f81a900f@oliver-h-1.hpl.hp.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:18:53 +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 Huw Oliver wrote: > You hold > KQx > x > Kxxx > Axxxx > > and double for takeout (all those x's are tens). > > 1N P 2D* P > 2H X XX** P > P ? > > ** "he thinks I'll make 2H", after partner's question. > > What is the panel's action now? Pass or 3C, depending what partner's pass meant. If the question is what the pass *should* mean, then I think a pass of a redouble of partner's takeout double should be for penalties at the 2-level (or above). There's not much point in a natural 2NT, so that could be used to scramble for a minor suit fit. Also there's the problem of the psychic redouble. At the one-level, you'd almost never want to pass for penalties, and you may well want to bid 1NT naturally, so it makes more sense for pass to mean "you choose". And a psychic redouble is not so attractive because it's likely just to encourage partner to compete to the 2-level. Jeremy. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 00:29:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:29:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA16986 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:29:00 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (579) by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id oRMHa02627; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:27:44 EDT Subject: Re: Where is the claim? To: j.rickard@Bristol.ac.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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/26/99 9:35:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk writes: > Unless I completely missed the point of what Kaplan did, this is not > even close to that case. This thread is no different from the one where the declarer places his hand face up on the table, says "...you all can see my problem...." and then FEELS for the opponents reaction. It stinks in any case. I can see no justification whatever for making remarks, showing cards, or any other action of that sort for anything other than to get information. We play that kind of game with pistols on the table, hesitations with singletons, psychic agreements with partner, and claims with hidden cards in hand. Can someone give me a serious justification for looking at a hand, analyzing the problems, and then telling the opponents what they are? To be sociable maybe? To impress them with our knowledge of what we need to do? Come on all you believers! From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 00:39:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:39:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17053 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:39:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA21198 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:39:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199905261439.KAA21198@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Where is the claim? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:39:03 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Jeremy Rickard" at May 26, 99 02:28:43 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard writes: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > >1. Declarer was Edgar Kaplan playing in the final of a major event. > > >Don't recall who the opposition was, but it was one of the elite > > >American pairs. And he was playing a grand. You can believe that he > > >was wide awake on this one. > > > > > >What he said (after playing a top Diamond) was (almost a direct quote) > > >If diamonds are 3-2, I'm solid. > > > > OK, let me get this straight. Next time I am in a grand slam with > > AJT9 opposite K8xxx, my correct line is to say "I am making this if the > > trumps are 2-2. Silence. Now I cash the ace and run the jack. This is > > a 76% line [oppos concede if the trumps are 2-2, 52%, and I make in half > > the other cases when I guess where the length is correctly. This seems > > an improvement on playing for the drop [52%] or finessing some way > > [50%]. > [snip] > > Is this the way to play bridge? No, it is not. It is an > > irregularity, and I just rule one down under L72B1 unless there is > > specifically a singleton queen. I also apply a fairly large PP. I can live with that ruling. And I wouldn't have been at all surprised if the director ruled if called. An interesting side point. While there was no call, I'm pretty sure that there was a director in the room at the time. The whole reason this even came up was that Kaplan/Kay had received a slow play warning. Given that the director was there in an official capacity should he have intervened if he felt there was an irregularity. > > Unless I completely missed the point of what Kaplan did, this is not > even close to that case. > > In your example, declarer lies (when he says "I'm making this if > trumps are 2-2"). I don't think anybody has suggested that Kaplan > was lying. That makes a huge ethical difference. Indeed. Experts in major events (at least in the US) seem to have adopted their own informal set of rules. I've kibitzed several major finals and semi-finals. Never once saw anyone state a line of play when claiming for instance (occasional vague waves at a suit that they intend to park their losers on. But in general, it was declarer faces hand, quick glance by defenders and hands put away.). Alerts were also handled pretty casually too. (Won't soon forget Bart Bramley holding his nose to indicate a preemptive raise. And that given that they were white versus red it rated to be pretty thin. Come to think of it though, that gesture described his partner's expected hand very accurately.) I wonder if this is a good idea to allow. Occasionally you get messy situations (like the Pavlicek-Root vs Meckwell hand where the Meckwell player claimed that a bid had been alerted and their opposition said it wasn't.). I'm uncomfortable with this for two reasons. I think it's a bad idea to have seperate conditions for experts. And occasionally a team will attempt to enforce the actual rules. (Like for instance the infamous Kantar ruling.) -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 00:39:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:39:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17058 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:39:18 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (579) by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 9XALa02629; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:36:25 EDT Subject: Re: SV: What is AI for fielding a psyche? To: xbridge@online.no 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/26/99 10:26:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, xbridge@online.no writes: > I feel I have to > state that I agree with Kojak up to a certain extent in this matter. > > The problem as I see it is when a pair has "hidden agreements" which they do > not convey to their opponents. This is more than just a violation of active > ethics. This is cheating! > > On the other hand, I disagree with my very dear friend Bill when he states > that he has problems with a player who states: "My partner is known to have > psyched in this situation....." In my book this does not constitute any > violation of the ethics code. In my opinion, the player does the right thing > when revealing whatever he knows about his partner's bidding style to his > opponents. In fact, this is what he is supposed to do, and this is also the > reason why bids are alerted - to inform the opposition of whatever "we know > but they don't (or even may not) know"! I also partially agree with you. What I have trouble finding is a player who says to his opponents ".....my partner has been know to psyche in this situation...." and then takes no action that in any way protects against it being a psychic bid THIS TIME. Sure, tell 'em what you know completely, but act as though partner's call fully complied with Law 40A. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 00:42:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17081 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:42:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.gnnettest.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (966 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:41:59 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:41:25 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws Subject: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:41:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) - 2C is alertable or not (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) Are cue bids ever alertable? If so when? It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable over a "natural" 1C opening. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 00:45:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:45:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17096 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:45:12 +1000 (EST) 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 KAA26674 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA01351; Wed, 26 May 1999 10:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:45:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905261445.KAA01351@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L42,L43 et al Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was asked a question at the club last night, the answer at which I could only guess. I was given this scenario: defender 1 leads a card, declarer calls for a card from dummy, defender 2 plays (?), a card which dummy can't see, declarer plays a card, trick is quitted; does the dummy have the right to ask what the unseen card is? Under L66, the only players refered to are the declarer and the defenders. L42A2 allows dummy to keep track of the cards, but says nothing about dummy actually seeing the cards. L42B2 permits dummy to try to prevent an irregularity, but... The question, then: does dummy have the right to see which card has been played? A related question: can a defender deliberately prevent dummy from seeing which card is being played (for example, holding a card obliquely in front of declarer)? Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 01:02:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA17188 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:02:27 +1000 (EST) 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, 26 May 1999 16:02:15 +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 PAA27273 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 15:59:20 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: [BridgeForum] murky bidding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:56:19 +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 Whoops! Sorry! I'll change one of those aliases. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 01:09:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:09:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17209 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:09:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip51.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.51]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990526150918.CRLJ16228.fep4@ip51.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 17:09:18 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:09:18 GMT Message-ID: <37540d67.2171682@post.tele.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 Wed, 26 May 1999 14:28:43 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) skrev Jeremy Rickard: >> AJT9 opposite K8xxx, >In your example, declarer lies (when he says "I'm making this if >trumps are 2-2"). Can you explain why that is a lie? >was lying. That makes a huge ethical difference. I don't see why. The real question is whether it is okay to suggest a certain play and base the real play on the opponents' (eventually missing) reaction. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 01:14:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:14:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17228 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:14:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from p5es13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.95] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10mfNj-00017K-00; Wed, 26 May 1999 16:14:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000201bea78a$16575460$5f8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: a lead from "wrong" hand Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:06:31 +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: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 May 1999 12:07 Subject: Re: a lead from "wrong" hand >Steve Willner wrote: > ------ \x/ ------ >>Is there any protection > ----- \x/ ------- > I do not believe that L12C1 can be used to give better scores than 60% >for A+ or worse scores than 40% for A- at the TD's or AC's judgement. > +++ I would say it is abundantly clear that an *artificial* adjustment has by definition no connection with any bridge result, actual, putative or assessed, on the hand. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 01:22:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:22:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA17271 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:22:36 +1000 (EST) 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, 26 May 1999 16:22:22 +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 QAA27716 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 16:19:53 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:16:52 +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 On Wed, 26 May 1999 10:27:44 EDT Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > This thread is no different from the one where the declarer places his hand > face up on the table, says "...you all can see my problem...." and then > FEELS for the opponents reaction. It stinks in any case. I can see no > justification whatever for making remarks, showing cards, or any other action > of that sort for anything other than to get information. We play that kind > of game with pistols on the table, hesitations with singletons, psychic > agreements with partner, and claims with hidden cards in hand. Can someone > give me a serious justification for looking at a hand, analyzing the > problems, and then telling the opponents what they are? To be sociable > maybe? To impress them with our knowledge of what we need to do? Come on all > you believers! Actually, I don't think that what Kaplan did should be allowed, but mainly because of practical problems and because the technique is likely to be misused by those who don't understand it properly. In principle though, I wouldn't be too worried if it were allowed in *precisely* the following situation: (a) Declarer is considering various lines of play, *all* of which would succeed if trumps break (or more generally if defenders' hands satisfy some other condition), and (b) The *only* information that declarer elicits is whether or not trumps break (i.e., no information about how they fail to break). One of the practical problems is that (b) is hard to ensure: it's just too likely that an unwary opponent will give away the actual position. But if (a) and (b) hold, and if declarer is careful, then: (i) If declarer is allowed to ask, he will claim if trumps break, and think about the best way to cope with a bad trump break otherwise. (ii) If he is not allowed to ask, he will think about the best way to cope with a bad trump break in any case, and make the contract in exactly the same cases that he does if allowed to ask. The only difference is that everybody saves some time and declarer saves some mental energy if he's allowed to ask. It's arguable whether declarer should be entitled to save this mental effort: maybe if he weren't allowed to ask, he would prefer to save his energy for a more likely occurrence than a bad trump break, whereas if allowed to ask he would know that this is a good time to think. But if there were some way to allow this kind of thing which guarded against misuse, then personally I think it would make for a better game, for much the same reasons that claims do. Jeremy. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 01:28:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:28:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17299 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:27:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from p2bs05a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.165.44] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10mfaW-0001Tq-00; Wed, 26 May 1999 16:27:24 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01bea78b$eed9daa0$5f8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard F Beye" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:23:46 +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 Discussion List Date: 26 May 1999 15:02 Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > >> There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North American >> bridge-playing population that a psych is never a legitimate ploy. They >> see the protected status of psychs (per L40A) as a "loophole" of which >only >> the somewhat unscrupulous would take advantage, and would ban them >entirely >> if the laws allowed. > >I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there is a >failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and a tactical >call within a large segment of the North American contingient. > +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 01:44:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:44:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17355 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:44:18 +1000 (EST) 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 AA008903443; Wed, 26 May 1999 11:44:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA093873442; Wed, 26 May 1999 11:44:02 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:43:52 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Cue Bids 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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id BAA17356 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) - 2C is alertable or not (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) Are cue bids ever alertable? If so when? [Laval Dubreuil] Read the ACBL Alert chart Not alertable: Most meanings of cuebids. Alertable: An offer to play in a suit or denomination named naturally by an opponent. The text under Non alertable is not very explicit, but it is normally interpreted as "Cue bids are not alertable when the player does not want to play in the denomination named". Though, you should alert cue bids having "special" meanings .... It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable over a "natural" 1C opening. [Laval Dubreuil] On an artificial 1C, the player may want to play "in the denomination named". It should not be alertable because the denomination was not named "naturally" by the 1C opener. So 2C should be aletable if it is conventionnal (like Michael). When explaining ACBL alert policy, I always say : "It is like that, you have to know, but dont tell me it is not consistent or logical....I know." I try to help players in my club and around, publishing texts on alerts (in french). Happily, the ACBL alert policy is the same since June 1997 and not changing every 6 months as some years ago.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 02:15:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:15:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17605 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:15:48 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA10243 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 12:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA04865 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 12:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:15:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905261615.MAA04865@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: "Fielding" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > I think what most people mean by "fielding a psych" is the catching of > partner's psych when when there is no legitimate explanation for the > catch. The meaning of 'fielding' is regional, or at least depends on the user. As I understand it, in the UK and on the West coast of the US, the above is likely. Around here (East coast of US), fielding means "recognizing," with no implication that the recognition is by improper means. One can even speak of "fielding" an opponent's psych. On an international forum like BLML, all of us need to be aware that both meanings are used. Writers should try to give clear indication of which meaning is intended, and readers should consider context and possibly the writer's location. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 02:17:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:17:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA17621 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:17:30 +1000 (EST) 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, 26 May 1999 17:17:16 +0100 Received: (from majcr@localhost) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) id RAA28903 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 17:13:20 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199905261613.RAA28903@elios.maths.bris.ac.uk.> Subject: Re: Where is the claim? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:13:19 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <37540d67.2171682@post.tele.dk> from "Bertel Lund Hansen" at May 26, 99 03:09:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel wrote: > > Wed, 26 May 1999 14:28:43 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) skrev Jeremy > Rickard: > > >> AJT9 opposite K8xxx, > > >In your example, declarer lies (when he says "I'm making this if > >trumps are 2-2"). > > Can you explain why that is a lie? Because in David's example declarer went on to cash the ace of trumps and finesse for the queen when he didn't get defenders to admit trumps were 2-2. So he wasn't making if trumps were 2-2. Whereas in the Kaplan example he *was* making if trumps were 3-2, just as he said, whatever the reaction of the defenders to his question. Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 02:27:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:27:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17651 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:27:39 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA05097; Wed, 26 May 1999 12:27:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:27:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905261627.MAA17246@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: j.rickard@Bristol.ac.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Jeremy Rickard on Wed, 26 May 1999 16:16:52 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)) Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > In principle though, I wouldn't be too worried if it were allowed > in *precisely* the following situation: > (a) Declarer is considering various lines of play, *all* of which would > succeed if trumps break (or more generally if defenders' hands satisfy > some other condition), and > (b) The *only* information that declarer elicits is whether or > not trumps break (i.e., no information about how they fail to break). > One of the practical problems is that (b) is hard to ensure: it's just > too likely that an unwary opponent will give away the actual position. > But if (a) and (b) hold, and if declarer is careful, then: > (i) If declarer is allowed to ask, he will claim if trumps break, and > think about the best way to cope with a bad trump break otherwise. > (ii) If he is not allowed to ask, he will think about the best way to > cope with a bad trump break in any case, and make the contract in > exactly the same cases that he does if allowed to ask. The problem with this is that expert declarers are likely to be able to make use of table presence. For example, which defender objects? AQ92 KT54 "If trumps are 3-2, I will take three trumps, then do ..." Is the defender with four trumps or one trump more likely to be the one who objects? Could declarer draw an inference which was more reliable than 50-50? -- 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 May 27 02:32:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:32:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17670 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:32:38 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA05536 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 12:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905261632.MAA17348@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA) Subject: Re: Cue Bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval_Dubreuil writes: > A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) > - > 2C is alertable or not > (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) > Read the ACBL Alert chart > Not alertable: Most meanings of cuebids. > Alertable: An offer to play in a suit or denomination named naturally > by an opponent. This is designed for consistency; "named naturally" means that the suit must both be bid and playable. For example, invisible cue-bids are alertable. Over a Flannery opening, 2H is alertable if it is not an attempt to play hearts. 2S is apparently not alertable if it shows spades. Question; what makes a bid "natural" for these purpsoes? If 1C shows clubs but can be opened on 4-4-3-2 with a doubleton, is a natural 2C overcall now non-alertable, and Michaels alertable? Most defenders ignore the possibility of a doubleton club in their defensive methods. -- 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 May 27 02:54:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA17717 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 02:54:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21086; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:53:36 -0700 Message-Id: <199905261653.JAA21086@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 May 1999 10:41:24 PDT." <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:53:38 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) - > 2C is alertable or not > > (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) > > Are cue bids ever alertable? > If so when? > > It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid > should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable > over a "natural" 1C opening. I don't know of any decent player who would call a 2C overcall of an artificial 1C opening a "cue bid". My "Official Encyclopedia" (Fourth version) says a cuebid is "a forcing bid in a suit in which the bidder cannot wish to play [this part of the definition is defective, since (1C)-pass-(1S)-2S may show a wish to play in spades]. It is applied to (1) bids in the opponents' suit at any level . . .". Since clubs is not the "opponents' suit" in this case (since 1C is artificial), 2C can't be considered a cue-bid. On the other hand, if LHO opens 1NT and RHO bids 2D, transfer, and I bid 2H, I'd consider this a cue-bid and I'd assume it must be alerted if it shows hearts. I don't see any inconsistency. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 03:00:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 03:00:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17739 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 03:00:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA21186; Wed, 26 May 1999 09:59:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199905261659.JAA21186@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 May 1999 12:32:25 PDT." <199905261632.MAA17348@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:59:36 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Laval_Dubreuil writes: > > > A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) > > - > > 2C is alertable or not > > > (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) > > > Read the ACBL Alert chart > > > Not alertable: Most meanings of cuebids. > > Alertable: An offer to play in a suit or denomination named naturally > > by an opponent. > > This is designed for consistency; "named naturally" means that the suit > must both be bid and playable. For example, invisible cue-bids are > alertable. Over a Flannery opening, 2H is alertable if it is not an > attempt to play hearts. 2S is apparently not alertable if it shows > spades. After reading this, I have to retract part of what I just wrote. Maybe 2S should be alertable here, but it's not clear whether it is, according to the rules. However, I stand by my assertion that (1C) 2C is not a cue-bid if 1C is artificial (like Precision). I'd still consider it a cue-bid if 1C is "essentially natural" even if it can sometimes be on a doubleton. It may be that a precise definition of "cue-bid" is almost as hard to come by as a precise definition of "convention"; but I think we have to apply common sense and Alert if in doubt. This is a situation where the EBU rules appear to have merit. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 03:04:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 03:04:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17761 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 03:04:04 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (8069) by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id oTWWa02682; Wed, 26 May 1999 13:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <685d5f85.247d8307@aol.com> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:01:59 EDT Subject: Re: Where is the claim? To: j.rickard@Bristol.ac.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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/26/99 11:24:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, J.Rickard@Bristol.ac.uk writes: > The only difference is that everybody saves some time and declarer saves > some mental energy if he's allowed to ask. It's arguable whether > declarer should be entitled to save this mental effort: maybe if he > weren't allowed to ask, he would prefer to save his energy for a more > likely occurrence than a bad trump break, whereas if allowed to ask > he would know that this is a good time to think. But if there were > some way to allow this kind of thing which guarded against misuse, > then personally I think it would make for a better game, for much the > same reasons that claims do. The Laws define correct procedure up to and including claims. No where have I read in the Laws where questions,comments, actions, of this nature are allowed. Law 74 spells out a lot of things which are pertinent here. A 3. B 2. C 4. I've also seen the very common method of just flashing the hand as a claim amongst the expert players. That is done when there is mutual respect by the pairs that they all know how to play bridge. I've also been involved a number of times when that breaks down, and it was never a pretty sight to behold. Saving time when something is obvious is a courtesy, and specified in the Laws. (B4). There are many opportunities for its proper use. I've just returned from the South American Championships in Peru, and there were many occasions where a hand, containing no further problems in play was face, nodded at, and closed without even one word being said. It works - but that is not the case here. To ascribe nothing but good motives to these departures from correct procedure is to also believe strongly in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. There's a world of difference between showing your cards as a claim without making any verbal statement because you don't think it necessary, and fishing for help in making decisions NOT YET MADE on how to play the hand. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 03:35:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 03:35:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17897 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 03:35:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.78.50]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990526173453.IDWS25179@default> for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 17:34:53 +0000 Message-ID: <02ef01bea79d$f54386e0$544e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "bridge-laws" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:32:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Willey > Are cue bids ever alertable? > If so when? > > It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid > should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable > over a "natural" 1C opening. The most common example that I give is the following: 1D - 1N - P - 2D --- > Where 2D is a transfer, alertable. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 03:47:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA17993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 03:47:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA17988 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 03:47:42 +1000 (EST) 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 NAA12989 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 13:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA04967 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 13:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905261747.NAA04967@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Where is the claim? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > There's a world of difference between showing > your cards as a claim without making any verbal statement because you don't > think it necessary... Yes, L68C and especially the word "should" and seem to cover this. > and fishing for help in making decisions NOT YET MADE on > how to play the hand. Yes, this is a different kettle of fish (so to speak). One thing that seems clearly wrong is treating this as a claim, at least in cases where declarer "demonstrably did not intend to claim" (L68A). So if declarer starts out "I'm not claiming, but...," ruling it a claim seems perverse. Kojak mentions L74A3, B2, and C4. I don't see how the last of these is relevant, but the first two may be. L74C7 covers another method of "fishing for help." L72B1 also comes to mind. Is there an irregularity? Could declarer have expected to gain by it? Still, there doesn't seem to be any law that covers the situation exactly. I guess that's why we are discussing it. Anyway, the decision sequence seems to be: 1. Was there a violation of any of the proprieties? 2. Did the violation damage the opponents? (I.e., did the "discovery play" work?) If yes to both, adjust the score under L12A1. This is NOT the same as adjudicating a claim under L70. Of course a PP is possible regardless of whether the opponents were damaged. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 04:00:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:00:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18060 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:00:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.78.50]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990526180021.IMFL25179@default> for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 18:00:21 +0000 Message-ID: <032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <000f01bea78b$eed9daa0$5f8d93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:59:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott > From: Richard F Beye > >From: Eric Landau > > > >> There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North American > >> bridge-playing population that a psych is never a legitimate ploy. They > >> see the protected status of psychs (per L40A) as a "loophole" of which > >only the somewhat unscrupulous would take advantage, and would ban them > >entirely if the laws allowed. > > > >I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there is a > >failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and a tactical > >call within a large segment of the North American contingient. > > > +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? e.g. #1 P - P - 1H - P 3H - P - P - X P - P - P Our agreement is that we play limit jump raises. the 3H bidder holds: Jxx Kxxxx Kxxx x Some ACBLers would have a stroke, since the 3H bidder does not hold 10+, just short of an opener. I judge this call to be tactical, not psychic (and in some respects, LTC, a solid limit raise). The bidder has used his bridge judgement to select the call, that to him, best expresses the playing value of his hand. e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P 2C - P - 2D - P P - P The 2C bidder holds: Txx Txxx Txxxx x Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream foul. e.g #3 P - P - 3S - X P - P - P Not Vul versus Vul The 3S bidder holds xxx xx xx Kxxxxx Here the 3S bidder has clearly made a psychic call and maybe even a tactical one. If it turns out that 6S was on for the doubling side and through misdefense the bidder can scramble home 2 tricks he has earned his good score. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 04:33:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:33:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18203 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:33:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-0-7.ac.net [205.138.47.16]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id OAA14876 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:32:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905261832.OAA14876@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:39:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: RE: 1C - 2C - alert or no? In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F38C@xion.spase.nl> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A0244688374901DA@xion.spase.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk If they are playing a typical 5 card major system, and the bidding goes 1H - 2H (showing hearts and to play) then 2H is Alertable and any conventional meanings are not... Similarly 1S - 2S, 1D - 2D, 1C - 2C are all Alertable against a 2/1 or Standard system if they are natural, and not Alertable if they are conventional or strong (ie. Michaels, top and bottom, etc....) Alerts also required for 1C - P - 1S (2C/2S) if they are natural. The question is sort of a "poll" because I have found out that "regular club" players who really have no clue what Precision is have told me that they still play Michaels over all one club bids and don't Alert any of them because only "natural" cuebids are Alertable. Of course, we would still have things like 1S - 2H - P - 2S being played as a transfer. Special Alerts that we used to have weren't so bad after all, maybe. And then to make it more confusing, what happens when they are playing "could be short" club that may or may not be artificial? I sort of have sympathy for the average player who would contend that if they repeat a suit the opponents have named with a desire to play there (ie - natural) would be the only time they would Alert. There was an appeal at an NABC in the Reisinger where an international player, playing Precision, was not Alerted on the non-natural Precision 1C - 2C sequence. Do you think a player at this level should be totally protected, or should he probably know that most players at this level use the 2C conventionally and have some obligation to inquire. That is the issue that prompted my inquiry. Of course, the ACBL literature makes interpreting even tougher because I believe the phrase "natural cuebid" is a complete oxymoron. In order for any bid to qualify as a cuebid, I believe it should be a forcing bid in a suit in which the bidder cannot wish to play. I would call the 1C - 2C natural sequence a "natural overcall." But we still have a problem - some natural overcalls are Alertable and others are not. Just another mess for our Alert system.... Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 04:35:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:35:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18223 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:35:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22383; Wed, 26 May 1999 11:34:59 -0700 Message-Id: <199905261834.LAA22383@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 May 1999 12:59:33 PDT." <032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:35:00 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? > > e.g. #1 P - P - 1H - P > 3H - P - P - X > P - P - P > Our agreement is that we play limit jump raises. the 3H bidder holds: > Jxx Kxxxx Kxxx x > Some ACBLers would have a stroke, since the 3H bidder does not hold 10+, > just short of an opener. I judge this call to be tactical, not psychic (and > in some respects, LTC, a solid limit raise). The bidder has used his bridge > judgement to select the call, that to him, best expresses the playing value > of his hand. > > e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P > 2C - P - 2D - P > P - P > > The 2C bidder holds: > Txx Txxx Txxxx x > Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows > with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand > is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better > his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream > foul. > > e.g #3 P - P - 3S - X > P - P - P > > Not Vul versus Vul The 3S bidder holds > xxx xx xx Kxxxxx > Here the 3S bidder has clearly made a psychic call and maybe even a > tactical one. If it turns out that 6S was on for the doubling side and > through misdefense the bidder can scramble home 2 tricks he has earned his > good score. After seeing these examples, I'm still not sure what is meant by a "tactical" call. #1 looks like an exercise of bridge judgment to gauge the playing strength of a hand. #2 is a legitimate part of the Stayman convention, and anyone who would cry "foul" needs to go back to school. I'd call this a "tactical call": You hold: xx Kxx A AKQJxxx You Partner 1C 1D(1) (1) tends to deny 4-card major 2S(2) 3D (2) supposed to be natural, GF 3NT I held this hand, and I got LHO to lead a low heart away from her ace for 13 tricks (partner had 10x of clubs and the rest of the high diamonds) despite the fact that partner also had xx in spades. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 04:36:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:36:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18233 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:36:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-0-7.ac.net [205.138.47.16]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id OAA15226 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:36:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905261836.OAA15226@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:42:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-Reply-To: <199905261632.MAA17348@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:32 PM 5/26/99 -0400, you wrote: >Laval_Dubreuil writes: > >> A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) >> - >> 2C is alertable or not > >> (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) > >> Read the ACBL Alert chart > >> Not alertable: Most meanings of cuebids. >> Alertable: An offer to play in a suit or denomination named naturally >> by an opponent. > >This is designed for consistency; "named naturally" means that the suit >must both be bid and playable. For example, invisible cue-bids are >alertable. Over a Flannery opening, 2H is alertable if it is not an >attempt to play hearts. 2S is apparently not alertable if it shows >spades. I believe this in incorrect. If they open Flannery and you bid 2H or 2S to play, you must Alert. If they are not natural and conventional they are not alerted. Linda > >Question; what makes a bid "natural" for these purpsoes? If 1C shows >clubs but can be opened on 4-4-3-2 with a doubleton, is a natural 2C >overcall now non-alertable, and Michaels alertable? Most defenders >ignore the possibility of a doubleton club in their defensive methods. > >-- >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 May 27 04:37:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:37:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18253 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:37:43 +1000 (EST) 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 LAA05430 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 11:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004601bea7a6$c8c647c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" References: <199905260837.EAA26218@primus.ac.net> Subject: Re: 1C - 2C - alert or no? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:37:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: Subject: 1C - 2C - alert or no? > Simple question... > > ACBL land... > > W N E S > 1C* 2C > * = Precision > > Alert required? for what meanings? > No Alert if the bid just shows clubs. One must Alert a natural bid in a suit first bid *naturally* by an opponent, but not one that was bid artificially. If the 2C bid is natural but has some unusual understanding associated with it (denies another suit, etc.), then it must be Alerted. See page 7 of 16, The Alert Procedure, under 4) Cue Bids Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 04:41:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18276 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:41:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-0-7.ac.net [205.138.47.16]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id OAA15717 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:41:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905261841.OAA15717@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:47:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-Reply-To: <02ef01bea79d$f54386e0$544e4b0c@default> References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ok... you guys are discussing where I was heading now... I just wanted reactions to my "poll" before the discussion started... If they are playing a typical 5 card major system, and the bidding goes 1H - 2H (showing hearts and to play) then 2H is Alertable and any conventional meanings are not... Similarly 1S - 2S, 1D - 2D, 1C - 2C are all Alertable against a 2/1 or Standard system if they are natural, and not Alertable if they are conventional or strong (ie. Michaels, top and bottom, etc....) Alerts also required for 1C - P - 1S (2C/2S) if they are natural. The question is sort of a "poll" because I have found out that "regular club" players who really have no clue what Precision is have told me that they still play Michaels over all one club bids and don't Alert any of them because only "natural" cuebids are Alertable. Of course, we would still have things like 1S - 2H - P - 2S being played as a transfer. Special Alerts that we used to have weren't so bad after all, maybe. And then to make it more confusing, what happens when they are playing "could be short" club that may or may not be artificial? I sort of have sympathy for the average player who would contend that if they repeat a suit the opponents have named with a desire to play there (ie - natural) would be the only time they would Alert. There was an appeal at an NABC in the Reisinger where an international player, playing Precision, was not Alerted on the non-natural Precision 1C - 2C sequence. Do you think a player at this level should be totally protected, or should he probably know that most players at this level use the 2C conventionally and have some obligation to inquire. That is the issue that prompted my inquiry. Of course, the ACBL literature makes interpreting even tougher because I believe the phrase "natural cuebid" is a complete oxymoron. In order for any bid to qualify as a cuebid, I believe it should be a forcing bid in a suit in which the bidder cannot wish to play. I would call the 1C - 2C natural sequence a "natural overcall." But we still have a problem - some natural overcalls are Alertable and others are not. Just another mess for our Alert system.... and how are the not very experienced folks ever going to figure this out.... FYI the moratorium on messing with the Alert procedure expires at the end of 1999 and the Competitions and Conventions Committee is already pondering fixes... there will also be some effort to completely redesign the whole Alert process which probably wouldn't go into effect until late in 2000 because the BOD has to approve any changes... This is an area where Bobby Golman will be sorely missed - he was a very active CC&C Committee member. Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 04:48:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:48:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA18312 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 04:47:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-0-7.ac.net [205.138.47.16]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id OAA16314 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905261847.OAA16314@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:53:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-Reply-To: <02ef01bea79d$f54386e0$544e4b0c@default> References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:32 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Richard Willey >> Are cue bids ever alertable? >> If so when? >> >> It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid >> should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable >> over a "natural" 1C opening. > > >The most common example that I give is the following: > >1D - 1N - P - 2D --- > Where 2D is a transfer, alertable. Are you sure? I think any time diamonds-to-hearts and hearts-to-spades occurs after 1NT, the word "transfer" is said - The example in the Alert pamphlet is 1D - 1NT - 2D - 4H, the 1NT bidder announces..... THis example might be one for what you are trying to say: 1H - 1S - P - 2S where 2S is a transfer to clubs would be Alertable, if it was just forcing it would not... and if it was natural it would be Alerted.... Actually, you are emphasizing my point... for a Director as experienced and knowledgable as Rick is to not have it down pat - I have a lot of respect for him - how does the poor average player EVER have a chance? *sigh* Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:07:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:07:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18370 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:07:47 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA08373 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 12:07:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005a01bea7ab$00262a60$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <008101bea6d3$b11f95a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374B6A93.197B0EB6@pinehurst.net> Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:05:22 -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 Nancy T. Dressing wrote: > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > Herman DeWael wrote: > > > > >snipped > > > > I see nothing in L57 that covers a situation in which a player follows > > *after* partner but *before* dummy plays, although I would suppose > > that any helpful information arising from that action would be UI. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > Doesn't Law 57A cover this situation very nicely???? Nancy > > Not the way I read it. 57A refers to playing out of turn before partner has played, not after partner has played but before dummy has played. The only applicable law I can see is L44B, "...each player in turn plays a card." The Preface says that when the Laws say a player "does" something, a correct procedure is established "without any suggestion that a violation be penalized." Evidently playing after partner plays, but before dummy (or before declarer, when that is the case), is a minor violation of correct procedure that the Laws don't consider worth bothering with in L57. Any UI coming from such a play is probably handled by the Laws concerning proprieties, in one way or another. I'll leave it to others to come up with some UI that might be created. An old story has declarer leading from Axx toward KJ10, with LHO hesitating a bit before playing. Declarer sticks in the 10 and RHO doesn't take his queen. When LHO asked later, "Why didn't you take your queen?" the reply was "I thought you had it." A variation of the story could have RHO playing before dummy, to save declarer from unnecessary deliberation. L44B should have included the words "in rotation," to establish that the play goes clockwise ("Rotation" is defined as a clockwise direction in the Definitions). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:22:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:22:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18404 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip248.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.248]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990526192228.DZFL18449.fep1@ip248.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 21:22:28 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 21:22:25 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3750498d.3390204@post12.tele.dk> References: <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990526004703.00af0d60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990526004703.00af0d60@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA18406 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 26 May 1999 00:47:03 +0200, Anton Witzen wrote: >and a lead out of turn then??? >it seems rather legal for declarer to accept it. Either at start or later >in the game. Leads out of turn can always be accepted by declarer or one of the defenders, as the case may be. That is a different situation and there are clear laws describing it. The question we are discussing is (IMO) plays out of turn that are not the first card to a trick. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:22:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:22:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18412 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:22:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip248.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.248]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990526192235.DZFZ18449.fep1@ip248.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 21:22:35 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 21:22:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <374e4895.3142188@post12.tele.dk> References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <374cdeb5.2988837@post12.tele.dk> <374BC385.EF75946C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <374BC385.EF75946C@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA18413 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 26 May 1999 11:48:53 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I believe this matter settled by Grattan's intervention I do not :-) >You say that declarer makes a minor mistake, which goes >slightly unpunished, and you ask why it then should be >punished. I'm asking why it should be punished _by letting opponents commit an irregularity_. >Actually You say it should not be punished because it is not >punished. I don't understand what you are saying here. >Why should a deviation from correct procedure go unpunished >? Very good question! Try to apply it to the defender! Declarer has committed a harmless irregularity, which can never gain. Do you really find it natural that this should be penalized by allowing defenders to also commit an irregularity - one that can actually sometimes gain? Are there any other places where the law book prescribes a penalty consisting of allowing the opponents an irregularity? >And whyever should a defender give more attention to the >correct procedure than a dummy, whose sole duty at the table >might well be to give attention to correct procedure - he >can't do anything else in fact. If declarer has already played from dummy, then it is too late for dummy to do something about it - he may only prevent irregularities, not call attention to them. An inattentive defender who happens to play out turn without noticing that dummy's play was not in turn has committed an irregularity for which there is no penalty - that is what L57C says, it is perfectly reasonable, and there are no problems in that. But we are not talking about an inattentive defender - we are talking about a defender who sees declarer play out of turn from dummy, who fully realizes that dummy's play was out of turn, and who nevertheless deliberately wants to play out of turn himself, either to gain an advantage in the play or to annoy declarer. That is a violation of L72B2. (And, if done to annoy declarer, L74A1 and L74A2.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:23:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:23:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18420 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:22:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip248.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.248]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990526192244.DZGL18449.fep1@ip248.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 21:22:44 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 21:22:42 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <374d485d.3086658@post12.tele.dk> References: <374e1322.2977942@post12.tele.dk> <374BC4D3.FF63DC4B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <374BC4D3.FF63DC4B@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA18421 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 26 May 1999 11:54:27 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >But by doing so you are laying a concept of intent in the >Laws, something we have carefully avoided. L72B2, which IMO is the most important law in the book, is all about intent - as it has to be. >Why should we allow a careless defender more than a careful >one ? As I said in another reply, the question is not about a careless defender, but about a defender who carefully and deliberately commits an irregularity. >If some (irregularity) carries no penalty, then why should >we disallow it nevertheless ? Because it is an irregularity! If it is not disallowed, then it must be allowed; if it is allowed, it must be correct procedure; if it is correct procedure, then it is not an irregularity. There can be no such thing as an "allowed irregularity". Actions are either allowed or not - there is nothing in-between, even though some actions that are not allowed do not result in a penalty. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:23:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:23:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18425 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip248.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.248]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990526192251.DZGR18449.fep1@ip248.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 21:22:51 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 21:22:48 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <374c3d9a.331967@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA18427 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 26 May 1999 02:20:40 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >+++ I would not presume to say where the WBFLC would stand today >until it has looked at the question. I have sent to blml a little earlier a >comment on the drafting of this law. The device of allowing something >to happen by saying it will not be penalized is not strange to EK's >approach and I do think that is where he stood. That an action is not to be penalized is not the same as its being allowed. If the WBFLC writes something in the laws, it should be prepared for people to assume that it means what it says. >Whether the drafting >"should" have given explicit permission for the action in wording the law, >if that was the intention, depends where you stand in relation to EK's >attitude and use of language. Where I stand is easy to describe: I have very little use for laws that can only be understood by people who knew EK and his way of expressing himself. Not only did I (as almost all directors in the world) not know EK; it also concerns me that Danish directors need to be able to rule from the text translated into Danish. This is in no way meant as an attack on EK: I have an enormous respect for his contribution to the laws of bridge, and I appreciate that you tell us what he thought and how he might have meant something different from what I read in L57C. But we should accept that the laws are what is written in the book that every TD has a copy of, not EK's intention. > (Personally I like precise laws even if this >means extra words - and even if to be secure the language is legalistic - >and I am thinking it becomes imperative in an age of semanticism.) +++ Yes, please. I hope (and believe) that this attitude of yours will make it easier to understand the laws in the future. (But please make it legalistic only where it really is necessary in order to make it unambiguous). I think "an age of semanticism" is wrong - I think people have _always_ tried to understand the laws by reading what they say (which I expect is what you mean by "semanticism"). What is new is just that the Internet allows so many of those people to communicate easily - until recently, we just had to interpret the words as best we could, and the WBFLC never heard of the resulting strange interpretations. >> The concept of an action that is not legal, but which will not be >> penalized if taken by somebody who does not realize that the situation >> is one in which that action is illegal, is an important one, > >+++ I distrust your instincts. It appears to me that no distinction should >be made in applying a prescribed penalty by reference to a judgement >whether the player was or was not ignorant of the relevant law. I do not >see anything in Law 57C which justifies an assumption that it is there to >cater for a player's ignorance of the law. +++ I must have expressed myself badly. I was not talking about ignorance of law, but about ignorance of the situation at the table. The example: S is declarer. He leads from hand, and immediately afterwards plays from the table, before W has played. If E does not realize that the card from dummy was played out of turn, he will probably play out of turn himself, and that is what I used the word "inadvertent" about. In this situation, E must of course not be penalized - that is what L57C tells us. But if E does realize that dummy played out of turn, and then deliberately plays out of turn himself, then he is IMO in violation of L72B2. Typically (when he does not try to gain by it) a very minor violation of L72B2, but a violation nevertheless. >> Since "infraction" is not defined in the "Definitions" section, I find >> it difficult to understand such a distinction or use it for any >> practical purpose. >> >+++ The distinction is made in the 'Scope and Interpretation >of the Laws'. +++ I had not read that sentence in the "Scope and Interpretation of the Laws" as defining the concept of infraction. To me, it just seems to be used as a variation of "violation", which is the word used for actions that are less serious _and_ for actions that are more serious than the ones called "infractions". But you're right that it can be read as a definition. However, it should be in the "Definitions" if any special meaning is to be attached to its use in the laws. To go back a few days: On Mon, 24 May 1999 22:46:10 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++++ Law 57C describes the premature play as an irregularity - a deviation >from correct procedure - when declarer has played from both hands etc. >But it is a deviation for which the player will not be penalized. He is >thus licensed to do it without sanction and, in that state of the law, it >could not be considered an impropriety. I do not understand that. English is your language, not mine: it seems to me that "not an impropriety" means the same as "proper", and that it can never be proper to deviate from "correct procedure". So how can an action be "not an impropriety" and still be "a deviation from correct procedure"? Note by the way the language in the "Scope and Interpretation of the Laws": when a player "may" do something, "the failure to do it is not wrong". These words are not used about actions described by "does", "shall", or "must", so we can conclude that when such words are used (as in L44B) it is wrong not to do it - even if there is no penalty. If, hypothetically, we pretend that L57C specifically allowed the defender to play out of turn (as you tell us was probably EK's intention), then that action becomes "correct procedure", not an irregularity, and entirely proper. But I find it impossible to read that intention in the words of L57C. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:28:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:28:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18478 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:27:57 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA10448 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 12:27:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008001bea7ad$d041b320$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990526080934.006d48a4@pop.cais.com> <00bd01bea77b$d51e47a0$544e4b0c@default> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:25:01 -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 Richard F. Beye > From: Eric Landau > > > There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North American > > bridge-playing population that a psych is never a legitimate ploy. They > > see the protected status of psychs (per L40A) as a "loophole" of which > only > > the somewhat unscrupulous would take advantage, and would ban them > entirely > > if the laws allowed. > > I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there is a > failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and a tactical > call within a large segment of the North American contingient. > A tactical call is a psych made by a pro :))) Seriously, a psychic call is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length," according to the Definitions. I do not see how the ACBL can exempt tactical bids from the regulations concerning psychs. An example given in *Duplicate Decisions* is a 2D response to 1S with S- QJxxx H-Ax D-xxx C-KQx to ward off a diamond lead. Now, I agree that such tactics should not be regulated, at least when they are rare enough that partner doesn't expect them (and will, for instance, lead a diamond from Kx against a 5H contract). What I disagree with is that the ACBL treats this particular psych, popular with pros, differently from other psychs. If we are to have regulations concerning psychs, all should be treated on an equal basis. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:31:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:31:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18492 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:30:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vn-0-13.ac.net [205.138.47.184]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id PAA20720 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 15:30:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:28:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-Reply-To: <199905261836.OAA15226@primus.ac.net> References: <199905261632.MAA17348@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:42 PM 5/26/99 -0400, you wrote: >At 12:32 PM 5/26/99 -0400, you wrote: >>Laval_Dubreuil writes: >> >>> A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) >>> - >>> 2C is alertable or not >> >>> (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) >> >>> Read the ACBL Alert chart >> >>> Not alertable: Most meanings of cuebids. >>> Alertable: An offer to play in a suit or denomination named naturally >>> by an opponent. >> >>This is designed for consistency; "named naturally" means that the suit >>must both be bid and playable. For example, invisible cue-bids are >>alertable. Over a Flannery opening, 2H is alertable if it is not an >>attempt to play hearts. 2S is apparently not alertable if it shows >>spades. > >I believe this in incorrect. If they open Flannery and you bid 2H or 2S to >play, you must Alert. If they are not natural and conventional they are >not alerted. Sorry - I correct myself - typing too fast before brain engages.... If they open 2D Flannery - 2H and 2S natural are not Alerted; 2H and 2S not ALerted if they convey "normal cuebid information" 2H would be Alertable if it showed for example, clubs... Linda > >Linda >> >>Question; what makes a bid "natural" for these purpsoes? If 1C shows >>clubs but can be opened on 4-4-3-2 with a doubleton, is a natural 2C >>overcall now non-alertable, and Michaels alertable? Most defenders >>ignore the possibility of a doubleton club in their defensive methods. >> >>-- >>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 May 27 05:35:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18516 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:35:41 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA11290 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 12:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008401bea7ae$e456e280$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: SV: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:35:16 -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 > xbridge@online.no writes: > > > I feel I have to > > state that I agree with Kojak up to a certain extent in this matter. > > > > The problem as I see it is when a pair has "hidden agreements" which they > do > > not convey to their opponents. This is more than just a violation of active > > ethics. This is cheating! > > > > On the other hand, I disagree with my very dear friend Bill when he states > > that he has problems with a player who states: "My partner is known to have > > psyched in this situation....." In my book this does not constitute any > > violation of the ethics code. In my opinion, the player does the right > thing > > when revealing whatever he knows about his partner's bidding style to his > > opponents. In fact, this is what he is supposed to do, and this is also the > > reason why bids are alerted - to inform the opposition of whatever "we know > > but they don't (or even may not) know"! And surely you must extend this principle to plays as well as calls, since both are covered by L40. Shall we be hearing from you, "My partner has been known to falsecard in this situation" ? :)) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:42:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:42:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18542 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:42:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.44.40]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990526193909.AYU7576@default>; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:39:09 +0000 Message-ID: <036901bea7af$51e48a00$544e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Trent" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <199905261847.OAA16314@primus.ac.net> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:38:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Trent To: Bridge Laws discussion group Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:53 PM Subject: Re: Cue Bids > At 12:32 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote: > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Richard Willey > >> Are cue bids ever alertable? > >> If so when? > >> > >> It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid > >> should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable > >> over a "natural" 1C opening. > > > > > >The most common example that I give is the following: > > > >1D - 1N - P - 2D --- > Where 2D is a transfer, alertable. > > > Are you sure? I think any time diamonds-to-hearts and hearts-to-spades > occurs after 1NT, the word "transfer" is said - NO - the only time you use the annoucement is in a simple, uncontested auctioin. The above example is correct as presented. The Below example is incorrect as written below, the form as written would be alert. The NT bidder would annouce without the intervening 2D call. Rick > > The example in the Alert pamphlet is 1D - 1NT - 2D - 4H, the 1NT bidder > announces..... > > THis example might be one for what you are trying to say: > > 1H - 1S - P - 2S where 2S is a transfer to clubs would be Alertable, if it > was just forcing it would not... and if it was natural it would be Alerted.... > > Actually, you are emphasizing my point... for a Director as experienced and > knowledgable as Rick is to not have it down pat - I have a lot of respect > for him - how does the poor average player EVER have a chance? > > *sigh* > > Linda > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:46:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:46:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18559 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:46:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.44.40]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990526194500.DCW7576@default>; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:45:00 +0000 Message-ID: <038501bea7b0$230d27e0$544e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" , "Linda Trent" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <199905261847.OAA16314@primus.ac.net> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:44:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Trent To: Bridge Laws discussion group Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:53 PM Subject: Re: Cue Bids > At 12:32 PM 5/26/99 -0500, you wrote: > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Richard Willey > >> Are cue bids ever alertable? > >> If so when? > >> > >> It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid > >> should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable > >> over a "natural" 1C opening. > > > > > >The most common example that I give is the following: > > > >1D - 1N - P - 2D --- > Where 2D is a transfer, alertable. > > > Are you sure? I think any time diamonds-to-hearts and hearts-to-spades > occurs after 1NT, the word "transfer" is said - Yes Linda, the cue bid above is alertable. Many in ACBLand play the above sequence as Stayman. In this: 1D - 1N - P - 2H -----> the NT bidder would announce transfer. Your discussion asked about cuebids. Let's not go elsewhere right now. Rick From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 05:56:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:56:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA18592 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 05:55:52 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA13332 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 12:55:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009401bea7b1$b3d233a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:53:55 -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 Richard Willey wrote: > A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) - > 2C is alertable or not > > (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) > > Are cue bids ever alertable? > If so when? > > It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid > should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable > over a "natural" 1C opening. > Not logical, perhaps, but following the understandable practice of the ACBL to not require Alerts of common conventions (Stayman, takeout doubles, etc.), considering them a waste of time. A conventional cue bid over a conventional 1C opening is not going to be expected to have the same meaning as over a natural 1C (and probably doesn't), so making it Alertable becomes under the current Alert philosophy. I didn't like it when the ACBL dropped the requirement for Alerting common cue bid conventions (e.g., Michaels) over a natural opening, because I knew that those who had unusual cue bids like Top & Bottom would not Alert them. Sure enough, they are not doing so, saying "Cue bids don't have to be Alerted," and TDs are agreeing. If pairs had two convention cards on the table, legible and in plain view, as required by ACBL regulations, I could accept any Alert or non-Alert regulation for cue bids. A glance would give me the information. As it is, I always have to ask to see the opposing card just in case a cue bid isn't Michaels, whether or not I have a need to know, and that's a waste of time. Moreover, an opponent will usually Announce the meaning (illegally), thinking to be helpful. The meaning of a direct cue bid overcall of a one-level natural opening bid is a good candidate for addition to the list of Announcemernts. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 06:18:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 06:18:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA18636 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 06:18:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA24244; Wed, 26 May 1999 13:17:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199905262017.NAA24244@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 May 1999 14:38:15 PDT." <036901bea7af$51e48a00$544e4b0c@default> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:17:31 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Beye wrote: > > >The most common example that I give is the following: > > > > > >1D - 1N - P - 2D --- > Where 2D is a transfer, alertable. > > > > > > Are you sure? I think any time diamonds-to-hearts and hearts-to-spades > > occurs after 1NT, the word "transfer" is said - > > > NO - the only time you use the annoucement is in a simple, uncontested > auctioin. This seems to contradict both your previous post and the ACBL Alert Procedure document. In your previous message, you said that 1D-1NT-p-2H requires an Announcement, but this isn't a simple, uncontested auction. The ACBL document says an Announcement is used "After a diamond or heart transfer response at any level to any level natural notrump opening or overcall." It says nothing about this applying only in simple, uncontested auctions. I think you might have been right according to a previous version of the Alert procedure, but then a full moon happened, which signified to the ACBL that it was time to change the procedure again. (Well, that's what it seems like.) As things stand now, I believe Linda is correct. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 06:22:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 06:22:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA18660 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 06:22:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA28973 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 15:21:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.53) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028905; Wed May 26 15:21:03 1999 Received: by har-pa1-21.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEA793.84CB4E20@har-pa1-21.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 26 May 1999 16:19:24 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEA793.84CB4E20@har-pa1-21.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 15:01:56 -0400 Encoding: 83 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Interesting examples. Comments interspersed. Craig ---------- From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 1:59 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott > From: Richard F Beye > >From: Eric Landau > > > >> There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North American > >> bridge-playing population that a psych is never a legitimate ploy. They > >> see the protected status of psychs (per L40A) as a "loophole" of which > >only the somewhat unscrupulous would take advantage, and would ban them > >entirely if the laws allowed. > > > >I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there is a > >failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and a tactical > >call within a large segment of the North American contingient. > > > +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? e.g. #1 P - P - 1H - P 3H - P - P - X P - P - P Our agreement is that we play limit jump raises. the 3H bidder holds: Jxx Kxxxx Kxxx x Some ACBLers would have a stroke, since the 3H bidder does not hold 10+, just short of an opener. I judge this call to be tactical, not psychic (and in some respects, LTC, a solid limit raise). The bidder has used his bridge judgement to select the call, that to him, best expresses the playing value of his hand. @@@@@(to differentiate from Grattan's#'s) Doesn't a limit raise show length in the bid suit and a desire to play game in it if opener has extras? Doesn't this bid show that? Seems like a perfectly normal treatment. Not a tactical bid in my book...just aggressive normal bidding which includes a constructive element.@@@@@ e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P 2C - P - 2D - P P - P The 2C bidder holds: Txx Txxx Txxxx x Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream foul. @@@@@How could a perfectly normal use of Stayman possibly be construed as a psych? Yes, the bid is "tactical" and is also very plain vanilla.@@@@@ e.g #3 P - P - 3S - X P - P - P Not Vul versus Vul The 3S bidder holds xxx xx xx Kxxxxx Here the 3S bidder has clearly made a psychic call and maybe even a tactical one. If it turns out that 6S was on for the doubling side and through misdefense the bidder can scramble home 2 tricks he has earned his good score. @@@@@ Certainly good tactics. May not be legal if done so frequently that partner may expect it and not go to 4S with the likes of xxxx xx Qxx Jxxxx which would seem pretty automatic opposite a normal 3S preempt. Alternatively what about same vul, and you pick up JT9xxxx x xx Qxx. 3S there appears to be tactical but perhaps not a psych. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 06:54:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 06:54:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA18792 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 06:54:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.143]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990526205522.FHGX7623210.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:22 +1200 Message-ID: <374BB5D3.F4FA6F29@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:50:27 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? References: <89f549e8.247d426c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 5/25/99 9:49:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > > > I think I'm saddened that it appears that Kojak feels that psyches are > > not part of bridge. To me a well turned psyche (good or bad result > > doesn't matter) is a thing of joy to all players at the table. > I am not at all against psychic bids. I am against extending them into > partnership agreements. It is my position that Law 40A specifically permits > psychics, and I am for that. My objection is to their, to me, devious use by > agreement couched in the terms of ".......my partner has been known to psyche > in these circumstances, and therefor my bidding may be affected by that > knowledge..." Reading a psychic bid for that reason is against the Law IMO. And the converse of this is that if my partner will take my bid for what it is by explicit partnership agreement, unless she has direct evidence to the contrary (AI from the hand in progress), then I should be allowed to psyche as often as I like. That is the test is not frequency of psyching but on the ethical treatment of the bid by the psycher's partner. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 07:01:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 07:01:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18831 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 07:01:28 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA19941 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00f301bea7ba$e2084120$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <199905261847.OAA16314@primus.ac.net> <038501bea7b0$230d27e0$544e4b0c@default> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:56:25 -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 Richard F. Beye wrote: Linda Trent wrote: > > > >From: Richard Willey > > >> Are cue bids ever alertable? > > >> If so when? > > >> > > >> It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid > > >> should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable > > >> over a "natural" 1C opening. > > > > > > > > >The most common example that I give is the following: > > > > > >1D - 1N - P - 2D --- > Where 2D is a transfer, alertable. > > > > > > Are you sure? I think any time diamonds-to-hearts and hearts-to-spades > > occurs after 1NT, the word "transfer" is said - > > Yes Linda, the cue bid above is alertable. Many in ACBLand play the above > sequence as Stayman. Diamond-to-heart or heart-to-spade transfers in response to any natural notrump opening are Announceable, not Alertable, regardless of opposing bids. I asked this question of Gary Blaiss in connection with the finalization of my recap of the Alert Procedure recently, and this was his answer. I presume that using 2D as Stayman would not be Alertable, since it is a cue bid that does not have "a very unusual or unexpected meaning." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 07:02:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 07:02:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18844 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 07:02:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.43.18]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990526210146.BIYZ7576@default>; Wed, 26 May 1999 21:01:46 +0000 Message-ID: <03e401bea7ba$dcc4e740$544e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Craig Senior" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01BEA793.84CB4E20@har-pa1-21.ix.NETCOM.com> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:00:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I agree with all of Craig's comments. That is not to say, however, that a large and vocal group of ACBL regulars would not complain about any of the three calls cited. Grattan asked for examples. That is what I tried to present below. Rick ----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Senior > Interesting examples. Comments interspersed. > From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grattan Endicott > > From: Richard F Beye > > >From: Eric Landau > > > > > >> There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North > American > > >> bridge-playing population that a psych is never a legitimate ploy. > They > > >> see the protected status of psychs (per L40A) as a "loophole" of which > > >only the somewhat unscrupulous would take advantage, and would ban them > > >entirely if the laws allowed. > > > > > >I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there is a > > >failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and a > tactical > > >call within a large segment of the North American contingient. > > > > > +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? > > e.g. #1 P - P - 1H - P > 3H - P - P - X > P - P - P > Our agreement is that we play limit jump raises. the 3H bidder holds: > Jxx Kxxxx Kxxx x > Some ACBLers would have a stroke, since the 3H bidder does not hold > 10+, > just short of an opener. I judge this call to be tactical, not psychic > (and > in some respects, LTC, a solid limit raise). The bidder has used his > bridge > judgement to select the call, that to him, best expresses the playing value > of his hand. > @@@@@(to differentiate from Grattan's#'s) > Doesn't a limit raise show length in the bid suit and a desire to play game > in it if opener has extras? Doesn't this bid show that? Seems like a > perfectly normal treatment. Not a tactical bid in my book...just aggressive > normal bidding which includes a constructive element.@@@@@ > > e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P > 2C - P - 2D - P > P - P > > The 2C bidder holds: > Txx Txxx Txxxx x > Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows > with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand > is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better > his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream > foul. > > @@@@@How could a perfectly normal use of Stayman possibly be construed as a > psych? Yes, the bid is "tactical" and is also very plain vanilla.@@@@@ > > > e.g #3 P - P - 3S - X > P - P - P > > Not Vul versus Vul The 3S bidder holds > xxx xx xx Kxxxxx > Here the 3S bidder has clearly made a psychic call and maybe even a > tactical one. If it turns out that 6S was on for the doubling side and > through misdefense the bidder can scramble home 2 tricks he has earned his > good score. > > @@@@@ Certainly good tactics. May not be legal if done so frequently that > partner may expect it and not go to 4S with the likes of xxxx xx Qxx Jxxxx > which would seem pretty automatic opposite a normal 3S preempt. > Alternatively what about same vul, and you pick up JT9xxxx x xx Qxx. > 3S there appears to be tactical but perhaps not a psych. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 07:27:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA18965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 07:27:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA18960 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 07:27:39 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA22532 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 14:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00f901bea7be$8a3e0de0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <199905261847.OAA16314@primus.ac.net> <036901bea7af$51e48a00$544e4b0c@default> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:21:42 -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 Richard F. Beye wrote: Linda Trent wrote: > > > >From: Richard Willey > > >> Are cue bids ever alertable? > > >> If so when? > > >> > > >> It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid > > >> should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable > > >> over a "natural" 1C opening. > > > > > > > > >The most common example that I give is the following: > > > > > >1D - 1N - P - 2D --- > Where 2D is a transfer, alertable. > > > > > > Are you sure? I think any time diamonds-to-hearts and hearts-to-spades > > occurs after 1NT, the word "transfer" is said - > > > NO - the only time you use the annoucement is in a simple, uncontested > auction. NO - At one time transfers in competition had to be Alerted. When they changed transfers to Announcements in 1997, they made no distinction between transfers that come with or without opposing bidding. *All* diamond-to-heart or heart-to-spade transfers in response to a notrump overcall or opening are Announceable, even in competition. There is nothing in the Alert Procedure that says otherwise, and Gary Blaiss confimed this to me in private e-mail when helping me to finalize my recap of the Alert Procedure. If the transfer comes after opener has had a chance to rebid (whether or not he did so), and the transfer bid is 4D or 4H, then it is not Announced, and becomes the subject of a "Post-Alert," which comes after the auction is over (or after play is over, for defenders). For instance: 1D-P-P-1NT; P-4H, Texas transfer to spades. Opener has had a chance to rebid, so no Announcement. Assuming 4S ends the auction, then the transfer bid is explained before the opening lead is made. (I know this auction would never happen, I'm just covering all bases.) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 08:55:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19127 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:52 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYx-000FIU-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 22:36:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >++++ In England a psyche may be drawn to the attention of the >Director*, in which event it is normally recorded by him on a >form provided. The Chief Director classifies the psyche as >(a) 'Green' = innocuous, or (b) 'Amber' = would not be acceptable >if repeated often enough to create a pattern, or (c) 'Red' = opposite >the psyche partner's subsequent action is abnormal and evidently >caters for partner having psyched [Violation of Law 40A - artass >score and standardised procedural penalty of 10% produces 30-60%]. A Red psyche is one that *appears* to have catered for partner having psyched. Directors do not rule that an action *has* catered for 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 May 27 08:55:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19085 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:32 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYo-000FIh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:08 +0000 Message-ID: <1n3Q+HCj+BT3Ewp1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:21:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <374a6423.863020@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <374a6423.863020@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sun, 23 May 1999 18:27:16 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >[about playing out of turn after declarer has played from both hands] > >>First of all I would like you to admit that this is a far >>lesser infraction. > >Yes, indeed. > >Of course, as I've also said elsewhere, the addition of the word >"inadvertently" to L57C would make it quite clear. Or, if I should be >wrong and Herman's original view really is the intention of the WBFLC, >change the wording to say clearly that the defender may also play out >of turn. Errrr - who is playing out of turn, please? Declarer plays a card. Next, dummy plays a card. Next declarer's RHO plays a card, which seems to me to be in turn after the last card played. I have always assumed that L57C allows me deliberately to play before my partner. But not because I am playing out of turn: I am playing next after my RHO, which seems normal enough to me. -- 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 May 27 08:55:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19086 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:32 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYo-000FIe-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:56:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L42,L43 et al References: <199905261445.KAA01351@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199905261445.KAA01351@freenet5.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >I was asked a question at the club last night, the answer at which I >could only guess. I was given this scenario: >defender 1 leads a card, declarer calls for a card from dummy, >defender 2 plays (?), a card which dummy can't see, declarer plays a card, >trick is quitted; does the dummy have the right to ask what the unseen >card is? Under L66, the only players refered to are the declarer >and the defenders. L42A2 allows dummy to keep track of the cards, but >says nothing about dummy actually seeing the cards. L42B2 permits dummy >to try to prevent an irregularity, but... >The question, then: does dummy have the right to see which card has been >played? Certainly. >A related question: can a defender deliberately prevent dummy from seeing >which card is being played (for example, holding a card obliquely >in front of declarer)? No. Let us look at the Law. LAW 45 - CARD PLAYED A. Play of Card from a Hand Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him. B. Play of Card from Dummy Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself. If dummy cannot see the card then I take it has not been "faced" on the table, which is a Violation of Correct Procedure. I would tell your players to start playing bridge. -- 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 May 27 08:55:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19084 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:31 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYo-000FIc-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:51:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cue Bids References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> In-Reply-To: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence (1C*) - >2C is alertable or not > >(I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) > >Are cue bids ever alertable? >If so when? > >It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid >should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable >over a "natural" 1C opening. Well, let's see, what does the ACBL Alert chart say: 4) CUEBIDS Most cuebids are not Alertable. There are two cases, however, in which an Alert is required. A.) The cuebid is a natural bid and in a suit BID naturally by the opponents. EXAMPLE: 1D-1H-1S-2D If the 2D bid is an offer to play the hand in diamonds, an Alert is required. However, no Alert is required if the opponents have not actually bid the suit. Two examples are: EXAMPLES: 2D (four spades and five hearts) - 2H or 2S If the 2H or 2S is natural, no Alert is required. Also, no Alert is required if the 2H or 2S bid conveys normal cuebid information. However, if 2H were to show a club overcall, an Alert is required. B.) The bid has a very unusual or unexpected meaning. EXAMPLE: 1S-2H-Pass-2S If the 2 bid is a heart raise with values or some constructive hand, no Alert is required. If the 2 bid is a transfer to clubs, an Alert is required. Seems clear enough. Let's look at Marvin's summary. [http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/] Alert: 21.Natural bid in a suit bid naturally by an opponent (i.e., a real suit), or cue bid with an unusual meaning Do not alert: 13.Cue bid that doesn't have an unusual meaning 14.Natural bid in a suit bid artificially by an opponent, a double that shows the suit, or a lead-directing double of the suit -- 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 May 27 08:55:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19126 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:52 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYw-000FIe-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 22:25:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: <199905221753.NAA07731@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990522213435.007200ec@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990522213435.007200ec@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 01:53 PM 5/22/99 -0400, David G wrote: >>Is a fielded psyche not an automatic infraction in the UK? >I've never played in the UK and wouldn't presume to guess at their >particular implementation of the Laws. But I have a hard time imagining >that a "fielded psych" is an infraction, per se, there or anywhere. Well, >maybe I could imagine it in ACBL-land, but then they are not such sticklers >for conforming their regulations to the requirements of the Laws. A fielded psyche is an infraction of Law 40A. You have a right to make an intentionally misleading call, such as a psyche, so long as it is not based on a partnership understanding: that Law says so. If you take action that suggests a partnership understanding you have fielded it. If your partner opens 1S third in hand, RHO overcalls 1NT, and you hold an 11-count, you are expected to take some strong action. After all, you could easily have game on your way even if everyone has their bids. Players who now pass because their partner *always* opens third- in-hand whether he has anything or not are protecting partner's possible psyche in defiance of L40A. They are "fielding" partner's psyche. >Are we talking about the same thing when we use the phrase "fielded psych"? >To me, it means that the psych-bidder's partner has deduced what his >partner is up to and acted on that conclusion. That is not the meaning of "fielded" in use in Europe: it is not the usage in most of NAmerica, though I grant you some use it this way: it is not the usage in the Bridge Encyclopedia. It means he has deduced it *illegally*. > Now this certainly might be >illegal, if for example the conclusion was influenced by UI (a sneaky grin >on pard's mug), or if the partnership had an unannounced agreement to psych >in particular situations, even if that agreement evolved out of partnership >experience rather than specific discussion. This is typical fielding. >But if a player deduces that partner has psyched based on his own general >bridge knowledge, his own cards, and/or the logic of the auction and the >opponents' actions, he is fully entitled to do so, and has no obligation >either to inform the opponents of his conclusion or to base subsequent >actions on the nominal meaning of partner's action. Right??? OK, but we do not call this fielding. -- 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 May 27 08:55:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19149 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:01 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYz-000FIh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:15:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >Marvin:- >> A better analogy is an ultra-light weak two bid. A number of local >> pros violate their stated range frequently with clients, often with as >> little as one queen. When the TD is called, they explain that the bid >> was merely a psych. The TD nods sagely, and walks away. >+++ I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting > that the 'local pros' violate their agreements on Weak Twos so >often that their partners cannot fail to be aware of it? > Are you suggesting that the players concerned may have some >discussion with their partners on the subject? No, the pro-client problem is that pros may often open light weak twos, or off-shape or out-of-range 1NT openings, without their partners ever being aware of it. It may be a disclosure problem, but the difficulty is that it is not a partnership agreement - often the *last* thing the pro wants is for the client to discover what he is up to! -- 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 May 27 09:00:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19108 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:43 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYr-000FIU-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:35:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Thoughts about thoughts. References: <001101bea774$3e5734a0$9f8a93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001101bea774$3e5734a0$9f8a93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >The absence of David is perhaps the reason for the quietness of this list... >;-) >++++++++ 26 May 1999 : Does anyone get the feeling the > silence has been shattered??? +++++++++ No? -- 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 May 27 09:20:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:20:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.post.tele.dk (fep2.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19263 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:20:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip114.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.114]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990526232040.FFWC1342.fep2@ip114.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:20:40 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:20:41 GMT Message-ID: <376080ad.4556551@post.tele.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 Wed, 26 May 1999 16:16:52 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) skrev Jeremy Rickard: >In principle though, I wouldn't be too worried if it were allowed >in *precisely* the following situation: Wouldn't it be much simpler to run the trumps and then claim/play? That would even be legal. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 09:21:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.post.tele.dk (fep2.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19269 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:20:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip114.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.114]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990526232046.FFWK1342.fep2@ip114.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:20:46 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:20:47 GMT Message-ID: <375f8063.4482275@post.tele.dk> References: <199905261747.NAA04967@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199905261747.NAA04967@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 Wed, 26 May 1999 13:47:43 -0400 (EDT) skrev Steve Willner: >where declarer "demonstrably did not intend to claim" (L68A). So if >declarer starts out "I'm not claiming, but...," ruling it a claim seems >perverse. I see ... And "I'm not breaking the laws, but ..." should not be handled as a break of the law? Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 09:24:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:24:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (mail.talk21.com [62.172.192.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19290 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([62.172.86.57]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5AFF for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:23:37 +0100 Message-ID: <001601bea7ce$c3830dc0$3956ac3e@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Play of a board against wrong pair Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 18:12:32 +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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>+++ Well, that's your opinion, my friend; as far as I am concerned >>one of the conditions of play is that the right pairs should be at the >>table > > When Laws are not totally clear we have to interpret them sensibly >using the information available, and that includes looking at not just >what is written, but also the rest of the Law, and also what is >"obvious". > > If we go down your road we are making a stationary pair responsible >for their opponents not smoking, knowing the alert rules, sitting facing >the table, not putting a cat on the table and so on. I don't believe >it. The general conditions of play are the responsibility of the >Director, not of other players. > > Furthermore, your interpretation makes *both* headings incorrect. >Yes, we all know that headings are not part of the Law, but they are >clearly pointers to when a Law should be used. The heading for L7 is >"CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS" and that hardly includes whether the >opponents are the correct ones. The heading for L7D is "Responsibility >for Procedures" and again it is not a procedure whether the opponents >are correct. > > It is not logical nor sensible to extend this Law to make a stationary >pair responsible for anything the opponents might do. That is properly >the responsibility of the Director, and I believe the correct >interpretation of this Law is that a stationary pair is primarily >responsible for the conditions of play at the table as far as the >control of the board and the cards is concerned. > ########## I missed the start of this thread so please forgive me if I'm going over old ground. L5B says "*each* player is responsible for moving when and as directed and for occupying the correct seat after each change." The old EBL Commentary specifically stated that the stationary pair were *not* responsible for ensuring that the correct opponents were at the table. Put these two together and it seems clear to me that the stationary pair do not have to check that the correct opponents are at the table now. ######## From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 09:30:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:30:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19311 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:30:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-1-30.ac.net [205.138.47.59]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA16692 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:30:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905262330.TAA16692@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 19:36:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-Reply-To: <009401bea7b1$b3d233a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:53 PM 5/26/99 -0700, you wrote: >Richard Willey wrote: > >> A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence >(1C*) - >> 2C is alertable or not >> >> (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) >> >> Are cue bids ever alertable? >> If so when? >> >> It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid >> should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable >> over a "natural" 1C opening. >> >Not logical, perhaps, but following the understandable practice of the >ACBL to not require Alerts of common conventions (Stayman, takeout >doubles, etc.), considering them a waste of time. A conventional cue bid >over a conventional 1C opening is not going to be expected to have the >same meaning as over a natural 1C (and probably doesn't), so making it >Alertable becomes under the current Alert philosophy. > >I didn't like it when the ACBL dropped the requirement for Alerting >common cue bid conventions (e.g., Michaels) over a natural opening, >because I knew that those who had unusual cue bids like Top & Bottom >would not Alert them. Sure enough, they are not doing so, saying "Cue >bids don't have to be Alerted," and TDs are agreeing. I don't believe you should Alert Top and Bottom if you don't Alert Michaels - sure would give me a handy way to know right away if my partner remembered which we were playing... I think it is consistent now (sort of) - only natural over natural is Alerted; therefore all cuebids are self-alerting. The regulation was not changed to "only Michaels is not Alertable" it was changed to "natural overcalls in the same suit" are Alertable. Linda > >If pairs had two convention cards on the table, legible and in plain >view, as required by ACBL regulations, I could accept any Alert or >non-Alert regulation for cue bids. A glance would give me the >information. As it is, I always have to ask to see the opposing card >just in case a cue bid isn't Michaels, whether or not I have a need to >know, and that's a waste of time. Moreover, an opponent will usually >Announce the meaning (illegally), thinking to be helpful. > >The meaning of a direct cue bid overcall of a one-level natural opening >bid is a good candidate for addition to the list of Announcemernts. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 09:41:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:41:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19331 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:41:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-1-30.ac.net [205.138.47.59]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA17854 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:40:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905262340.TAA17854@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 19:47:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-Reply-To: References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Most cuebids are not Alertable. There are two cases, however, in >which an Alert is required. > > A.) The cuebid is a natural bid and in a suit BID naturally by > the opponents. Of course, I think this whole statement is an oxymoron. A cuebid by definition cannot be natural. > EXAMPLE: 1D-1H-1S-2D > If the 2D bid is an offer to play the hand in diamonds, an > Alert is required. > > However, no Alert is required if the opponents have not > actually bid the suit. Two examples are: > EXAMPLES: 2D (four spades and five hearts) - 2H or 2S > If the 2H or 2S is natural, no Alert is required. This seems kinda crazy to me - has the opponent not bid both hearts and spades? Doesn't this contradict the spirit of A? Also, no > Alert is required if the 2H or 2S bid conveys normal cuebid > information. > However, if 2H were to show a club overcall, an Alert is > required. > > B.) The bid has a very unusual or unexpected meaning. I guess the whole problem is like beauty, "unexpected" is in the eye of the beholder. > EXAMPLE: 1S-2H-Pass-2S > If the 2 bid is a heart raise with values or some constructive > hand, no Alert is required. > If the 2 bid is a transfer to clubs, an Alert is required. > > Seems clear enough. Let's look at Marvin's summary. > > [http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/] > >Alert: > > 21.Natural bid in a suit bid naturally by an opponent (i.e., a > real suit), or cue bid with an unusual meaning > >Do not alert: > > 13.Cue bid that doesn't have an unusual meaning > 14.Natural bid in a suit bid artificially by an opponent, a > double that shows the suit, or a lead-directing double of the > suit > >-- >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 May 27 09:43:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:43:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19346 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:43:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-1-30.ac.net [205.138.47.59]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id TAA18032 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 19:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905262343.TAA18032@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 19:49:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Cue Bids Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >For instance: 1D-P-P-1NT; P-4H, Texas transfer to spades. Opener has had >a chance to rebid, so no Announcement. Assuming 4S ends the auction, >then the transfer bid is explained before the opening lead is made. (I >know this auction would never happen, I'm just covering all bases.) > You sure about this one? I have only seen documentation to the effect that there are delated ALERTS - I have seen nothing that says anything about delayed announcements... Linda >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 09:46:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA19377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:46:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (mail.talk21.com [62.172.192.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19372 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:45:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([62.172.84.50]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA6916 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:45:25 +0100 Message-ID: <008c01bea7d1$cef94a40$3956ac3e@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: L42,L43 et al Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:41:08 +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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tony wrote: >I was asked a question at the club last night, the answer at which I >could only guess. I was given this scenario: >defender 1 leads a card, declarer calls for a card from dummy, >defender 2 plays (?), a card which dummy can't see, declarer plays a card, >trick is quitted; does the dummy have the right to ask what the unseen >card is? Under L66, the only players refered to are the declarer >and the defenders. L42A2 allows dummy to keep track of the cards, but >says nothing about dummy actually seeing the cards. L42B2 permits dummy >to try to prevent an irregularity, but... >The question, then: does dummy have the right to see which card has been >played? >A related question: can a defender deliberately prevent dummy from seeing >which card is being played (for example, holding a card obliquely >in front of declarer)? >Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) > ########## I believe that the wording of L42A2 "*He* may keep count of tricks won and lost" mandates that dummy must be allowed to see all cards played to a trick. L42B3 "He may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after the play of the hand is concluded." similarly must require dummy to be allowed to see all played cards. A defender who deliberately conceals his played cards from dummy is denying dummy his right to draw attention to a revoke once play ceases etc. Complying with L65B also requires dummy to have sight of all played cards. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 10:00:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19105 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:42 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYs-000FIc-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:32:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards References: <3.0.32.19990519100520.009e2850@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990519100520.009e2850@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: > >At 13:46 18/05/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >>Of course when any of the declaring side puts his cards on >>the table as if he were dummy, either defender may lead, and >>"true" declarer has no choice but to accept the lead (he can >>choose to play himself or let his partner be declarer). > >Does that mean if partner and I misbid in such a fashion as to wrong-side >our contract we can recover by quickly having the preferred dummy-to-be >drop their cards face-up on the table before the opening lead ? And the >penalty is that the lead may come from either defender ? I suppose it is not easy to catch you at this but the penalty as far as I am concerned is that you get assigned a bad score under L72B1. -- 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 May 27 10:10:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:10:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19456 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:10:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem98.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.226] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10mnkg-0003uw-00; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:10:27 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Cc: Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:19:39 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "[There are] more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another." = Montaigne llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll ---------- > From: Tim West-meads > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > Date: 26 May 1999 10:00 > > In-Reply-To: <000f01bea6b5$4b0d3240$858993c3@pacific> > "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > > No. I just didn't understand why opponent's surprise or otherwise had > anything to do with whether or not a psyche was a psyche. ++ "A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy so long as it contains the same element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it does for opponents. Systemic psyching of any kind is unlicensed. You may not use any convention to control a psyche." (EBU 'white book' of supplementary regulations) ++ >Four decent > players sit down at a table and (nv vs v) the bidding goes p-p-1s- none of > the players should be surprised if the 1S bid lacks values/length for a 1S > bid and all, IMO, are entitled to bid cautiously in an attempt to find > out. ++ I recall one English partnership consulting the EBU L&E, some years ago, about their ultra light openers 3rd-in-hand. They were told that with four card support (? for a major suit opened) they must raise directly to the limit opposite a normal strength opening bid. Any waiting bid would be regarded as a control on the psyche. Much earlier again than that, I recall Harold Franklin expounding to the committee on the same theme. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 10:11:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:11:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19462 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:10:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem98.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.226] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10mnkm-0003uw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:10:33 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Wayne's Law & partner's unawareness. Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 01:09:05 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic." - Dostoevsky rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > From: wayne > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > Date: 26 May 1999 09:50 > > > And the converse [of this] is that if my partner will take my bid for what > it is by explicit partnership agreement, unless she has direct evidence > to the contrary (AI from the hand in progress), then I should be allowed > to psyche as often as I like. > ++++ In taking this view what is your reaction to the Law 75B reference to 'habitual violations' ? And, second question, do you not think that in 75B the words "so long as his partner is unaware of the violation" inhibit any practice by which you can go on psyching at will provided partner will ignore what experience of the partnership is telling her and simply continue the auction on the basis of your bids being all genuine? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 10:11:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:11:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19461 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:10:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem98.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.226] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10mnkk-0003uw-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:10:31 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:03:02 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "[There are] more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another." = Montaigne llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll ---------- > From: Richard F Beye > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > Date: 26 May 1999 18:59 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grattan Endicott > > From: Richard F Beye > > >From: Eric Landau > > > > > >> There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North > American > > >> bridge-playing population that a psych is never a legitimate ploy. > They > > >> see the protected status of psychs (per L40A) as a "loophole" of which > > >only the somewhat unscrupulous would take advantage, and would ban them > > >entirely if the laws allowed. > > > > > >I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there is a > > >failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and a > tactical > > >call within a large segment of the North American contingient. > > > > > +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? > > e.g. #1 P - P - 1H - P > 3H - P - P - X > P - P - P > Our agreement is that we play limit jump raises. the 3H bidder holds: > Jxx Kxxxx Kxxx x > Some ACBLers would have a stroke, since the 3H bidder does not hold 10+, > just short of an opener. I judge this call to be tactical, not psychic (and > in some respects, LTC, a solid limit raise). The bidder has used his bridge > judgement to select the call, that to him, best expresses the playing value > of his hand. +++ I have no problem with this up to the point when the opener has seen it happen in the partnership often enough to anticipate that partner's single jump raise may be just pre-emptive. Then the convention card needs to be amended. +++ > > e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P > 2C - P - 2D - P > P - P > > The 2C bidder holds: > Txx Txxx Txxxx x > Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows > with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand > is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better > his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream > foul. +++ You are joking ? +++ > > e.g #3 P - P - 3S - X > P - P - P > > Not Vul versus Vul The 3S bidder holds > xxx xx xx Kxxxxx > Here the 3S bidder has clearly made a psychic call and maybe even a > tactical one. If it turns out that 6S was on for the doubling side and > through misdefense the bidder can scramble home 2 tricks he has earned his > good score. +++ Now this I think is a psyche. And I doubt whether partner will ever anticipate it +++ ~ Grattan ~ > From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 10:11:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:11:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net [195.92.192.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19463 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:10:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem98.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.226] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-01.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10mnki-0003uw-00; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:10:28 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:42:23 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "[There are] more books upon books than upon any other subject; we do nothing but comment upon one another." = Montaigne llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllll ---------- > From: Schoderb@aol.com > To: john@probst.demon.co.uk > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > Date: 26 May 1999 13:26 > --------------- \x/ --------------------- > I am not at all against psychic bids. I am against extending them into > partnership agreements. It is my position that Law 40A specifically permits > psychics, and I am for that. My objection is to their, to me, devious use by > agreement couched in the terms of ".......my partner has been known to psyche > in these circumstances, and therefor my bidding may be affected by that > knowledge..." Reading a psychic bid for that reason is against the Law IMO. +++ Do we really hear this given as the basis for catering for partner having psyched? It is an admission that the partnership has developed an implicit understanding, i.e. an agreement which must be declared, and which the Regulating Authority is empowered to control or (usually) prohibit. Such an understanding would be HUM under the WBF Systems Policy (Section B3). It is perhaps worthy of note that the Laws define psychics by reference to the announced methods of the partnership. The Laws do not in themselves define what methods a partnership is permitted to agree and announce, they delegate to the Regulating Authorities wide powers to do this. It is for the regulations to define, to the extent the laws allow, what is not permissible in partnership agreements. ~ Grattan ~ +++. +++ ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 10:26:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19134 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:56 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYx-000FIc-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 22:32:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: <85256774.0048CEA4.00@peelsb.com> <3.0.1.32.19990517143423.006f7624@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990517143423.006f7624@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >Why would you want to take action against N-S? S committed an infraction >and has paid the penalty. N's right to psych is protected by L40A, which, >in my lawbook, doesn't say anything about S's being barred compromising >that right. No, it does not, but it also does not say that you can use UI in deciding to psyche. The psyche itself is based on the UI that partner has not got an opening bid, so is suggested over passing by this, is it not? -------------------- Marvin L. French wrote: >But the psych is much less dangerous when partner is known not to have >opening bid strength. The decision to psych was likely to have been >based on the UI of the withdrawn pass, hence was illegal per L16C2. Exactly. -- 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 May 27 10:53:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19644 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:53:28 +1000 (EST) 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 10moQ6-000MO8-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:53:16 +0000 Message-ID: <9+yCo2D2qIT3Ew5e@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:58:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Another hesitation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id KAA19646 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A correspondent writes: South holds at love all: S 7    H 10 8 5 2     D J 8 7     C A Q 10 8 4   Bidding goes:   N             E            S            W               1H            P            3H(1)        4S                P(2)          P            5C            P                5H            5S           P             P                X             All pass   (1)    More distributional (but not necessarily less strong) than 2NT, which they play as a balanced raise to 3H.   (2) Slow.   Clearly pass is a logical alternative to 5C (or 5H.) but is the 5-level bid suggested over pass by the slow pass? My view was that North could hold something as bad as   S Q 10 9 x   H A J x x    D A x x x    C x ,   and is thinking of doubling 4S - clearly with this hand (or many like it) a venture to the 5-level is going to be a disaster while 4S is defeated trivially. In fact he held   S K    H A K x x x     D A x x x     C K x x  and West has chosen to bid 4S on S Q J 8 x x x x     H x    D K Q     C J x x. Anyway, I allowed the 5C bid, although I wouldn't have allowed South to double, and got some flak as a result (but no appeal!) -- 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 May 27 10:53:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:53:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19645 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:53:28 +1000 (EST) 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 10moQ6-000MO7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 00:53:16 +0000 Message-ID: <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:55:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Concession after revoke MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Not a new situation, but perhaps interesting because a bit different from others. See what you think. A correspondent has asked me the following: Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a losing spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two tricks to West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the winning spade, and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his concession back, because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at trick twelve for a two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only give him a one-trick penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we restore equity, or do we resolve a doubtful point in favour of declarer? -- 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 May 27 11:04:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19088 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:32 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYo-000FIg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: <$nYSOACf1BT3EwJQ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:12:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Declarer faces cards References: <374092DB.8C6ECDE0@pinehurst.net> <02e001bea0d7$26802e20$a6284b0c@default> In-Reply-To: <02e001bea0d7$26802e20$a6284b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nancy T Dressing > >> A player asked me this afternoon: "What happens when declarer puts his >> hand on the table before the opening lead?" I tried to find an answer >> in the law book and the only reference I could find was Law 48B2, but >> the word may in this law bothers me. >> "B. Declarer Faces Cards - 2. When declarer faces his cards at any >> time other than immediately after an opening lead out of turn, he may be >> deemed to have made a claim or concession of tricks and Law 68 then >> applies." >> >> My first thought is that declarer thought he was the dummy and put his >> cards down without waiting for the opening lead. However, I don't know >> if that is the case. How does one handle this situation??? > > > > A S K H I M ! >Don't presume or assume. Many time the players will tell you the truth! >Better to investigate before you make a ruling rather than after. I should like to be associated with this answer. -- 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 May 27 11:04:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:04:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19695 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:04:42 +1000 (EST) 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 10mob3-000N7g-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 01:04:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 02:02:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Cue Bids References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <009401bea7b1$b3d233a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <199905262330.TAA16692@primus.ac.net> In-Reply-To: <199905262330.TAA16692@primus.ac.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: >I don't believe you should Alert Top and Bottom if you don't Alert Michaels >- sure would give me a handy way to know right away if my partner >remembered which we were playing... Do you really cheat at bridge? I doubt it. :) Alerting is meant to help oppos. Of course, some pairs use it for their own benefit, like finger signals, but to design alerting regs for them is awful. Alerting regs should be as helpful as possible to oppos. If Michaels is standard and Top+Bottom is not, then alerting the latter only seems sensible. >I think it is consistent now (sort of) - only natural over natural is >Alerted; therefore all cuebids are self-alerting. The regulation was not >changed to "only Michaels is not Alertable" it was changed to "natural >overcalls in the same suit" are Alertable. Great. All cue-bids are self-alerting, which means that the alert process is useless where they are concerned. How does this help? -- 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 May 27 11:30:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:30:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19752 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:30:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29640; Wed, 26 May 1999 18:29:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199905270129.SAA29640@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 May 1999 00:55:54 PDT." <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 18:29:38 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Not a new situation, but perhaps interesting because a bit different > from others. See what you think. A correspondent has asked me the > following: > > Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, > East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a losing > spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two tricks to > West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the winning spade, > and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his concession back, > because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at trick twelve for a > two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only give him a one-trick > penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we restore equity, or do we > resolve a doubtful point in favour of declarer? My opinion: Restoring equity after a revoke is handled by Law 64C; but I believe the concept is that equity should be restored only if the revoke penalty still leaves the non-offender with fewer tricks than he should have gotten. So if a defender's revoke creates a stopper in dummy's long running suit, with no side entry to dummy, and this cheats declarer out of 3 tricks, then declarer gets 3 tricks since the 1- or 2-trick revoke penalty isn't enough to restore equity. But this restoration of equity does *not* include a revoke penalty. He should have gotten 3 more tricks, so he gets 3 more tricks, not 3 tricks plus any additional tricks as a revoke penalty. So I don't think Law 64C applies in this case. Declarer was going to lose two tricks no matter what. After the revoke penalty, declarer only loses one of the tricks. Since the revoke penalty has left declarer (the NO) with *more* tricks than he was supposed to get, there's no question of "insufficient compensation", so L64C doesn't apply. So I'd rule against declarer on this one. I can see L64C applying in a case where declarer, after a defender's revoke, makes a claim on a line that's based on the "knowledge" that that defender is out of the suit. When this knowledge turns out to be false, the claim is a bad one, and resolving a bad claim may leave declarer with a lot fewer tricks; then I'd apply L64C since the revoke cheated declarer out of those tricks. However, that's not the situation here. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 11:34:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19107 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:43 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYs-000FIg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:49:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Appeal from Moscow MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I forgot to take note of the actual hand, and have no hand records. Vitold may be able to correct it if I have got it wrong. E/ALL Txx Butler Q8xx W N E S Kxx AKQxx Kxx xxx P P AJ97 KTxx 1S P 2C P x AQx 2H P 3H P xxx Jxx Txx 4H AP x Txxxx AQxx East's 2C was Drury, playing 5-card majors, and West forgot to alert. At the end of the hand South called the TD and claimed [in Russian] that he would have doubled 2C if it had been alerted. The TD [who did not speak Russian] elicited the following: The actual lead was a heart. Declarer finessed the DQ, discarded a club and made 4H in comfort. There was no doubt that Russian alerting rules required an alert. E/W claimed that everyone played Drury, it was completely standard. The TD asked South why he did not ask the meaning of the 2C: he said that it was not true that everyone played it, so he presumed that it was not Drury with no alert, and he did not like to ask. It seems that Drury is completely standard in Moscow but not elsewhere in Russia. This was an invitational tournament with players from various parts of Russia. There was one additional complication elicited by the AC, but before I tell you that, how would you rule? -- 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 May 27 11:48:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19106 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:43 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYs-000FIe-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:27:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <374cdeb5.2988837@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <374cdeb5.2988837@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 25 May 1999 12:18:24 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >>"Marvin L. French" wrote: >>> L57A implies that it is his turn to play after partner plays, not >>> after dummy plays: "When a defender...plays out of turn before his >>> partner has played..." >> >>No Marv, Anton is right. > >What exactly is wrong with Marv's point? > >>Please Jesper, I allow you to tell me where Anton is wrong. > >I'll try. There are several points: > >(a) Marv's point: if you are in turn, why is there a L57C at all? >According to you and Anton, all it does is tell us that there is no >penalty for playing in turn - that should not need a specific law! >Note that the headline of L57C uses the word "Irregularity" about the >play that you believe to be "in turn". And the wording would still be >"is allowed to" rather than "is not subject to penalty for" if you >were right. > >(b) Why should "in turn" mean "after RHO" rather than "after all the >plays that should come before yours"? The definition of "turn" and >"rotation" does not really help here. > >(c) Whatever definition of "turn" you like, surely there can be only >_one_ player whose turn it is to play. It that is you, it cannot also >be partner - so if you insist that it is your turn, then partner will >be playing out of turn if he plays before you. So if you and Anton >are right that you are in turn, then you _must_ play before partner is >allowed to do so - you can't both be in turn. But that is ridiculous. I think all these three are connected. It is not completely and automatically obvious whether declarer's RHO's play is in turn - one can argue both ways - so L57C makes it clear that there is nothing wrong with it, and IMO allows it. [s] >Nowhere else in the laws are >deviations from correct procedure which can never gain penalized by >giving the opponents an advantage. Even I would never dare make such a didactic statement! OK, everyone, let's get searching! -- 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 May 27 12:11:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA19130 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:54:54 +1000 (EST) 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 10mmYy-000FIg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:54:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:02:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OPENING Pass References: <010f01bea30c$2b79f320$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990521165916.0071e660@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990521165916.0071e660@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 09:47 AM 5/21/99 +0100, Jeremy wrote: >>Incidentally, I trust we would all be as ready to make a L16 >>adjustment if a player *failed* to bid a speculative 3NT with a >>balanced 18-count when his partner was barred from bidding >>because of an opening pass out of turn. >Not I. A failure to make such a call would show poor bridge judgement, IMO, >but nothing more. Does the fact that partner holds less than opening values >"demonstrably suggest" bidding less than game in this situation? Not at >all. The average hand holding less than an opening bid is still plenty good >enough for a play for game opposite a balanced 18-count, in my experience. Can you just run this argument past me again? I cannot quite get hold of it. You hold an 18-count. You go to the toilet, and return to find that partner has done something - you do not know what - that has barred him. Your call. 3NT? Of course, wouldn't we all! Now you also receive a further piece of information: partner does not have an opening bid. 3NT is still an option, of course, but the chance that your side has game values is reduced. So, if you consider that 3NT and 1NT are both LAs, 1NT is suggested over 3NT by that last piece of information, that partner has not got an opening bid. Now suppose that last piece of info is UI: you may not choose 1NT rather than 3NT because it is based on the UI. So if the player bids 1NT, making eight tricks, we adjust to 3NT-1. What is wrong with that? ---------- Michael S. Dennis wrote: >Taken together, these make it completely clear that North's action is >perfectly legal, so long as it has not been made more attractive by the >knowledge of partner's sub-opening values. That is a possibly legitimate >line of attack, but a fairly thin plank on which to stand, seized upon IMO >by those who are outraged by North's action, whether or not it was >influenced by UI. Thank you for your vote of confidence in our motives. Funnily enough, when a player has UI made available to him by partner [which a POOT is] then it does not need any sense of outrage to check the UI implications. ---------- Roger Pewick wrote: >B>> From: Jeremy Rickard >B>Incidentally, I trust we would all be as ready to make a L16 >B>adjustment if a player *failed* to bid a speculative 3NT with a >B>balanced 18-count when his partner was barred from bidding >B>because of an opening pass out of turn. >I would never play a game with such a rule. If you would never play a game that says you may not choose amongst LAs one suggested over another by UI [which is what Jeremy is saying] then you would never play bridge. L16 refers. -- 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 May 27 12:24:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:24:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19919 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:24:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehk3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.131]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA05303 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:24:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990526222224.00745f20@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 22:22:24 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> References: <000f01bea78b$eed9daa0$5f8d93c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:59 PM 5/26/99 -0500, Richard wrote: >e.g. #1 P - P - 1H - P > 3H - P - P - X > P - P - P > Our agreement is that we play limit jump raises. the 3H bidder holds: > Jxx Kxxxx Kxxx x > Some ACBLers would have a stroke, since the 3H bidder does not hold 10+, >just short of an opener. I judge this call to be tactical, not psychic (and >in some respects, LTC, a solid limit raise). The bidder has used his bridge >judgement to select the call, that to him, best expresses the playing value >of his hand. > I trust that everyone on this list, at any rate, would agree with you that this is not a psyche. It is simply not a gross distortion of values. Anyone who charged you with psyching such a call is simply an ignoramus. OTOH, it might be useful, if asked the meaning of such a call, to say "limit raise, 10-12 HCP or equivalent playing strength". >e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P > 2C - P - 2D - P > P - P > > The 2C bidder holds: > Txx Txxx Txxxx x > Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows >with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand >is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better >his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream >foul. > This is an acceptable, standard usage of Stayman (very weak, short clubs), and again, no knowledgeable person would call it a psyche. >e.g #3 P - P - 3S - X > P - P - P > > Not Vul versus Vul The 3S bidder holds > xxx xx xx Kxxxxx > Here the 3S bidder has clearly made a psychic call and maybe even a >tactical one. If it turns out that 6S was on for the doubling side and >through misdefense the bidder can scramble home 2 tricks he has earned his >good score. > Yes, that is most definitely a psyche, and again, not subject to any legal challenge so long as your partner is as likely to misread it as the opponents. The point others in this discussion would make, _and with which I agree_, is that we must take a very hard look at the situation if partner fails to raise you holding, say, four spades, or perhaps even three with some side shortness. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 12:35:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA19987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:35:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.mindspring.com (smtp1.mindspring.com [207.69.200.31]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA19982 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:35:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehk3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.131]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA27333 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 22:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990526223259.0074a310@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 22:32:59 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <199905261834.LAA22383@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:35 AM 5/26/99 PDT, Adam wrote: >After seeing these examples, I'm still not sure what is meant by a >"tactical" call. #1 looks like an exercise of bridge judgment to >gauge the playing strength of a hand. #2 is a legitimate part of the >Stayman convention, and anyone who would cry "foul" needs to go back >to school. > >I'd call this a "tactical call": > >You hold: xx Kxx A AKQJxxx You Partner > 1C 1D(1) (1) tends to deny 4-card major > 2S(2) 3D (2) supposed to be natural, GF > 3NT > >I held this hand, and I got LHO to lead a low heart away from her ace >for 13 tricks (partner had 10x of clubs and the rest of the high >diamonds) despite the fact that partner also had xx in spades. > Now I'm confused. I'd call that a psyche myself. It is a gross and deliberate effort to deceive the opponents about the nature of your hand. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, so long as partner is unprepared. If you've made this bid before, however (rebidding a major holding xx or less after 1C-P-1D-P), then pretty quickly it becomes information about your methods to which the opponents are entitled, IMO, and quite possibly illegal as a systemic psychic agreement. To say that the restrictions placed by the Laws (and ACBL regulation) don't apply because it is a "tactical" bid is simply a semantic trick to avoid those restrictions. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 13:26:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehcmail.ehc.edu (kelly.ehc.edu [208.27.12.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20097 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (user-38lcelp.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.58.185]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id 2ZJR7197; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:22:27 -0400 Message-ID: <374CBB77.5CF9B1A2@ehc.edu> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:26:47 -0400 From: John Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I forgot to take note of the actual hand, and have no hand records. > Vitold may be able to correct it if I have got it wrong. > > E/ALL Txx > Butler Q8xx W N E S > Kxx > AKQxx Kxx xxx P P > AJ97 KTxx 1S P 2C P > x AQx 2H P 3H P > xxx Jxx Txx 4H AP > x > Txxxx > AQxx Fourteen spades and twelve diamonds. That's the first problem :) But in all seriousness, what is the actual layout? I don't want to speculate as to which card goes where. 4H looks makeable even if one of South's spades is a diamond. Or is the problem that one of West's spades is a diamond and that he opened 1S with 4423 (or is this a problem)? BTW, it's nice to be back, although I don't know if my new institution will appreciate so many incoming messages each day :) John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu <---note new address!!! | From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 13:35:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:35:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehcmail.ehc.edu (kelly.ehc.edu [208.27.12.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA20125 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:34:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (user-38lcelp.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.58.185]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id 2ZJR7101; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:31:25 -0400 Message-ID: <374CBD91.5F316E64@ehc.edu> Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:35:45 -0400 From: John Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Not a new situation, but perhaps interesting because a bit different > from others. See what you think. A correspondent has asked me the > following: > > Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, > East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a > losing spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two > tricks to West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the > winning spade, and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his > concession back, because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at > trick twelve for a two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only > give him a one-trick penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we > restore equity, or do we resolve a doubtful point in favour of > declarer? How exactly did South phrase the concession? If he says "I concede two tricks to West" without further explanation, it is not a bad claim since West can win two club tricks on a club lead. John -- | John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu <---note new address!!! | From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 14:26:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:26:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20271 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:26:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.163]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990527040903.KFTV7623210.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:09:03 +1200 Message-ID: <374C9FFD.2AA81C59@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:29:33 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: <85256774.0048CEA4.00@peelsb.com> <3.0.1.32.19990517143423.006f7624@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote: > > >Why would you want to take action against N-S? S committed an infraction > >and has paid the penalty. N's right to psych is protected by L40A, which, > >in my lawbook, doesn't say anything about S's being barred compromising > >that right. > > No, it does not, but it also does not say that you can use UI in > deciding to psyche. The psyche itself is based on the UI that partner > has not got an opening bid, so is suggested over passing by this, is it > not? > I find it impossible in logic to agree with this last sentence. 1. None of my bids necessarily mean what is written on my convention card when partner is barred and everyone (bridge experience) at the table knows this so to start with it is a moot point what exactly is a psyche in this situation. 2. Presumably the AI information that I am allowed to base my actions on is that partner has 13 cards and if I have n hcp then I must be able to bid based on partner having (40-n)/3 pts on average. e.g. if I have 18 pts I can expect on average partner to have (40-18)/3 = 7 1/3 with this AI I would be entitled to bid what I think is the best game (on average) OR if I have 7 pts I can expect on average partner to have (40-7)/3 = 11 pts so why can I not offer a low-level partscore? Incidentally, I have run some simulations to try and determine what is the UI that knowing partner has a partscore is and I found: Points Held Partner's average (AI) Partner's average (UI) less than opening ================================================================ 0 13.3 8.4 6 11.3 8.2 10 10 7.5 13 9 7.5 16 8 6.9 20 6.7 5.6 23 5.7 5.3 My conclusion from this is on average at least the unauthorized information is only worth about a trick and that it possibly could influence an underbid when opener has a good hand (say 16 pts) where a game is reasonable but perhaps a little aggressive with the AI (combined 24 pts on average) but a little pushy with UI (combined 22.9pts on average). So my thinking (AI IMO) holding a below average hand would go: partner is barred; I have 7 pts I can expect a some from partner; Is there a tactical bid that I would like to make and L72A5 allows me to choose any call that I think will be advantageous to our side. > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >But the psych is much less dangerous when partner is known not to have > >opening bid strength. The decision to psych was likely to have been > >based on the UI of the withdrawn pass, hence was illegal per L16C2. > > Exactly. But this is a consequence of the Laws. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 14:26:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA20282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:26:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA20277 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:26:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.163]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990527040914.KFVO7623210.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:09:14 +1200 Message-ID: <374CC43C.80FE9BFE@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:04:12 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wayne's Law & partner's unawareness. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > Grattan > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > "Man has such a predilection for systems and > abstract deductions that he is ready to distort > the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the > evidence of his senses only to justify his logic." > - Dostoevsky > rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > > > From: wayne > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > > Date: 26 May 1999 09:50 > > > > > > And the converse [of this] is that if my partner will take my bid for what > > it is by explicit partnership agreement, unless she has direct evidence > > to the contrary (AI from the hand in progress), then I should be allowed > > to psyche as often as I like. > > > ++++ In taking this view what is your reaction to the Law 75B > reference to 'habitual violations' ? L75B "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). ..." Note "habitual violations ... *may* create implicit agreements" my emphasis. This means that they will not necessarily create an agreement. I guess that there is a judgment as to when that happens. Brief digression from psyches: I play weak (12-14) NT. On Sunday afternoon while driving home from a tournament in my wife said to me you are opening 1NT with a lot of 15 counts I think I should explain that when asked (neither 12-15 nor 12-14 NT would need an alert). I said sure that's fine. This is an example of habitual violation of announced partnership agreement that had become an implicit agreement. Oh you see I'm a conservative guy and would rather have a little extra than not enough for my bid. But I do enjoy the occasional psyche. I will concede that "...as often as I like." is an exaggeration but the qualifier here is "habitual". Random (in terms of frequency or regularity) psyches are not restricted. If I psyche three times tonight then not again for six months and then only once and again the next week and then some time next August I would not see this as habitual. But some Regulating Authorities would disapprove. And further in order for an agreement to form there would need to be some similarity to the violations - like my 15 count 12-14 NT. So random (in terms of nature) violations would not become part of an implicit agreement. This time I open 1S on 8pts and 5 spades 3rd in hand; next time I pre-empt 3H with 6 spades and stiff heart; then 1NT on 4 count where is the agreement. One or Two or Three etc violations do not necessarily form a habit and even when they do they do not (remember "...may...") necessarily form an implicit understanding. > And, second question, do > you not think that in 75B the words "so long as his partner is > unaware of the violation" inhibit any practice by which you can > go on psyching at will provided partner will ignore what > experience of the partnership is telling her and simply > continue the auction on the basis of your bids being all > genuine? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ The language here "unaware of the violation" suggests to me this particular violation not whether or not I have violated this agreement or any other agreement in the past. Partner needs to be aware of "the violation" not of another violation may have occurred. As discussed above other violations (habitual) may, but not necessarily, create an implicit agreement that would need to be disclosed and if the agreement was conventional or an opening action on a light hand then could be subject to regulation L40D. This sentence does not say "...unaware of a tendency to violate agreements...". Sure partner may be aware that I psyched on the last board, or three weeks ago, or sometime last year but none of this makes her aware that this call is a violation. Partner must be aware of *the* violation ... Which violation? This one, the one that has occurred and that I am allowed to make. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 15:56:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA20432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 15:56:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.mail.ozemail.net (fep2.mail.ozemail.net [203.2.192.122]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA20427 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 15:56:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au (slsdn3p29.ozemail.com.au [210.84.9.157]) by fep2.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA29328 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 15:56:18 +1000 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:56:18 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199905270556.PAA29328@fep2.mail.ozemail.net> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: Wayne's Law & partner's unawareness. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne claimed: > I play weak (12-14) NT. > On Sunday afternoon while driving home from a tournament in my wife >said to me you are opening 1NT with a lot of 15 counts I think I should >explain that when asked (neither 12-15 nor 12-14 NT would need an >alert). I said sure that's fine. This is an example of habitual >violation of announced partnership agreement that had become an implicit >agreement. IMHO, your system is 1NT 12-15 or perhaps 12-14(15). Why can't this be simply stated on the card? End of problem. Cheers, Tony From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 16:23:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:23:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20459 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:23:29 +1000 (EST) 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 XAA23657 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020901bea809$60365ca0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk> <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a6423.863020@post12.tele.dk> <1n3Q+HCj+BT3Ewp1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:13:24 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > > I have always assumed that L57C allows me deliberately to play before > my partner. But not because I am playing out of turn: I am playing next > after my RHO, which seems normal enough to me. > Normal, and not subject to penalty, but labeled as an irregularity by L57C, which doesn't use the word "deliberately." 72B2: A player must not infringe a law intentionally. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 16:23:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:23:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20460 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:23:33 +1000 (EST) 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 XAA23663 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:23:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020b01bea809$61076840$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" References: <199905262343.TAA18032@primus.ac.net> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:19:15 -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 Linda Trent wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > >For instance: 1D-P-P-1NT; P-4H, Texas transfer to spades. Opener has had > >a chance to rebid, so no Announcement. Assuming 4S ends the auction, > >then the transfer bid is explained before the opening lead is made. (I > >know this auction would never happen, I'm just covering all bases.) > > > > You sure about this one? I have only seen documentation to the effect that > there are delated ALERTS - I have seen nothing that says anything about > delayed announcements... > Hmm, you might have me there. I should have quit while I was ahead. However, I would bet that Gary Blaiss would say that the same principle applies to any conventional bid, Announceable or Alertable. Some people maintain that an Announcement is merely a type of Alert, as implied by the tapping of the Alert card when Announcing. Of course the point is probably moot, as the only instance I could think of was the one above, in which second hand passed over 1D with six or more spades and enough to bid game opposite a reopening 1NT bid. Never happens! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 16:54:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:54:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20527 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:54:00 +1000 (EST) 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 XAA26163 for ; Wed, 26 May 1999 23:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <021d01bea80d$9cb1ece0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <199905262330.TAA16692@primus.ac.net> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 23:47:20 -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 Linda Trent wrote: > > >Richard Willey wrote: > > > >> A more general question inspired by whether or not the sequence > >(1C*) - > >> 2C is alertable or not > >> > >> (I'm framing this question within the context of the ACBL) > >> > >> Are cue bids ever alertable? > >> If so when? > >> > >> It does not seem logically consistent that a conventional cue bid > >> should be alertable over a conventional 1C opening but not alertable > >> over a "natural" 1C opening. > >> > >Not logical, perhaps, but following the understandable practice of the > >ACBL to not require Alerts of common conventions (Stayman, takeout > >doubles, etc.), considering them a waste of time. A conventional cue bid > >over a conventional 1C opening is not going to be expected to have the > >same meaning as over a natural 1C (and probably doesn't), so making it > >Alertable becomes under the current Alert philosophy. > > > >I didn't like it when the ACBL dropped the requirement for Alerting > >common cue bid conventions (e.g., Michaels) over a natural opening, > >because I knew that those who had unusual cue bids like Top & Bottom > >would not Alert them. Sure enough, they are not doing so, saying "Cue > >bids don't have to be Alerted," and TDs are agreeing. > > I don't believe you should Alert Top and Bottom if you don't Alert Michaels > - sure would give me a handy way to know right away if my partner > remembered which we were playing... All Alerts have the problem that they are UI to partner. The trouble is that players, at least around these parts, will automatically assume Michaels, especially since most players don't have cards on the table as required. Top & Bottom would usually go by unnoticed until something bad happens. > > I think it is consistent now (sort of) - only natural over natural is > Alerted; therefore all cuebids are self-alerting. The regulation was not > changed to "only Michaels is not Alertable" it was changed to "natural > overcalls in the same suit" are Alertable. But in addition, cue bids that have "a very unusual or unexpected meaning" (page 7 of 16, item 4B, Alert Procedure) must be Alerted. T&B is unexpected in these parts (Southern California), and in my experience that is true for most of the U. S. When everyone has a legible cc on the table, then I'll come out against Alerting *any* cue bid overcall of a natural opening one bid, unusual or not. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 18:32:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA20840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 18:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20835 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 18:31:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <9116-22965>; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:30:44 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id KAA31809 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:06:24 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Another hesitation Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:04:44 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F38E@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837490236@xion.spase.nl> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >South holds at love all: S 7    H 10 8 5 2     D J 8 7     C A Q 10 8 4 >  >Bidding goes:   N             E            S            W > >               1H            P            3H(1)        4S >               P(2)          P            5C            P >               5H            5S           P             P >               X             All pass >  >(1)    More distributional (but not necessarily less strong) than 2NT, >which they play as a balanced raise to 3H. >  >(2) Slow. >  > Clearly pass is a logical alternative to 5C (or 5H.) but is the >5-level bid suggested over pass by the slow pass? My view was that North >could hold something as bad as >  >S Q 10 9 x   H A J x x    D A x x x    C x , >  >and is thinking of doubling 4S - clearly with this hand (or many like >it) a venture to the 5-level is going to be a disaster while 4S is >defeated trivially. In fact he held >  S K    H A K x x x     D A x x x     C K x x  and West has chosen to >bid 4S on > S Q J 8 x x x x     H x    D K Q     C J x x. > > Anyway, I allowed the 5C bid, although I wouldn't have allowed South >to double, and got some flak as a result (but no appeal!) As you yourself already pointed out, North could have a hand with which he was thinking of doubling 4S, but he could also have a hand with which he was thinking of raising to the five level (in fact, he did have such a hand). Law 16A states that South may not choose from logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the hesitation. This is not the case here; South cannot know which of the alternatives North is holding, hence whether he should double or bid 5C (5H). And since South's bid cannot be demonstrably related to the hesitation, South is free in his action. Therefore, 5C stands, but so would a double. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 19:00:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 19:00:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20904 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 19:00:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-142.uunet.be [194.7.13.142]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27058 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:00:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374CFC37.8039B1E7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:03:03 +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: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <374e1322.2977942@post12.tele.dk> <374BC4D3.FF63DC4B@village.uunet.be> <374d485d.3086658@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > >If some (irregularity) carries no penalty, then why should > >we disallow it nevertheless ? > > Because it is an irregularity! If it is not disallowed, then it must > be allowed; if it is allowed, it must be correct procedure; if it is > correct procedure, then it is not an irregularity. There can be no > such thing as an "allowed irregularity". > Circular reasoning again ! I had put (irregularity) between brackets to indicate that I do not believe it to be an irregularity but need a word to describe that what we know we are talking of. But your reasoning is : this is an irregularity, so it can not be allowed, and if it is not allowed, then it is an irregularity. My reasoning is : this action carries no penalty, so it must be allowed. I know that this is not immune to criticism, but at least it is not a circular argument. > Actions are either allowed or not - there is nothing in-between, even > though some actions that are not allowed do not result in a penalty. And that is where we part meaning. I believe that when something carries no penalty, it should be allowed. You cannot say in one law that something carries no penalty and then use another law to penalize it, simply because you did the thing knowingly in stead of inadvertently. L57 carries no such distinction, so there can never be a penalty. What is the use of saying that something is not allowed when there is no penalty to be given to it ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 19:00:48 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 19:00:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20899 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 19:00:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-142.uunet.be [194.7.13.142]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27050 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:00:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374CFA36.9A3A753B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:54:30 +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: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <374cdeb5.2988837@post12.tele.dk> <374BC385.EF75946C@village.uunet.be> <374e4895.3142188@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Wed, 26 May 1999 11:48:53 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >I believe this matter settled by Grattan's intervention > > I do not :-) > No problem. > >You say that declarer makes a minor mistake, which goes > >slightly unpunished, and you ask why it then should be > >punished. > > I'm asking why it should be punished _by letting opponents commit an > irregularity_. > why not ? > >Actually You say it should not be punished because it is not > >punished. > > I don't understand what you are saying here. > That's because you were not making sense in the first place. You call something a small irregularity, because it is only slightly punished. From that you deduce that it should not be severly punished. That's circular reasoning. > >Why should a deviation from correct procedure go unpunished > >? > > Very good question! Try to apply it to the defender! > > Declarer has committed a harmless irregularity, which can never gain. Harmless is your word, not mine. Even if they cannot gain, it is still an irregularity. > Do you really find it natural that this should be penalized by > allowing defenders to also commit an irregularity - one that can > actually sometimes gain? Are there any other places where the law > book prescribes a penalty consisting of allowing the opponents an > irregularity? > Many ! When a call out of turn is accepted, that too is a call out of turn, which remains an irregularity by your use of the word. > >And whyever should a defender give more attention to the > >correct procedure than a dummy, whose sole duty at the table > >might well be to give attention to correct procedure - he > >can't do anything else in fact. > > If declarer has already played from dummy, then it is too late for > dummy to do something about it - he may only prevent irregularities, > not call attention to them. > Declarer should certainly refrain fro doing this - it is even more disconcerting than dummy (the person, not the hand) playing out of turn. > An inattentive defender who happens to play out turn without noticing > that dummy's play was not in turn has committed an irregularity for > which there is no penalty - that is what L57C says, it is perfectly > reasonable, and there are no problems in that. > > But we are not talking about an inattentive defender - we are talking > about a defender who sees declarer play out of turn from dummy, who > fully realizes that dummy's play was out of turn, and who nevertheless > deliberately wants to play out of turn himself, either to gain an > advantage in the play or to annoy declarer. > So again you are making a difference in ruling dependent on the intentions of defender - which we can only know if he tells us ! > That is a violation of L72B2. Only if you consider an irregularity that goes unpunished an infraction. >(And, if done to annoy declarer, L74A1 and L74A2.) Well, since declarer or dummy started the annoying, that argument works both ways. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 19:54:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 19:54:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (int-gu.gu.net [194.93.160.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21083 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 19:54:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk.int.kiev.ua (pc144.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.144]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA00830 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:59:44 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <004201bea826$581446a0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:50:20 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk HI All! >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> I forgot to take note of the actual hand, and have no hand records. >> Vitold may be able to correct it if I have got it wrong. >> The the actual hands are: S J84 H 4 D 97653 C AQ53 S 653 S AKQ107 H K1075 H AJ86 D AQ8 D 4 C J97 C 1084 S 92 H Q932 D KJ102 C K62 Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 20:53:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA21195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 20:53:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA21189 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 20:53:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from p06s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.7] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10mxn1-0000vS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:53:31 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:57:47 +0100 Message-ID: <01bea82f$c18fab20$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, May 27, 1999 3:07 AM Subject: Appeal from Moscow > > I forgot to take note of the actual hand, and have no hand records. >Vitold may be able to correct it if I have got it wrong. > > E/ALL Txx > Butler Q8xx W N E S > Kxx > AKQxx Kxx xxx P P > AJ97 KTxx 1S P 2C P > x AQx 2H P 3H P > xxx Jxx Txx 4H AP > x > Txxxx > AQxx > > East's 2C was Drury, playing 5-card majors, and West forgot to alert. >At the end of the hand South called the TD and claimed [in Russian] that >he would have doubled 2C if it had been alerted. The TD [who did not >speak Russian] elicited the following: > > The actual lead was a heart. Declarer finessed the DQ, discarded a >club and made 4H in comfort. > > There was no doubt that Russian alerting rules required an alert. E/W >claimed that everyone played Drury, it was completely standard. The TD >asked South why he did not ask the meaning of the 2C: he said that it >was not true that everyone played it, so he presumed that it was not >Drury with no alert, and he did not like to ask. > > It seems that Drury is completely standard in Moscow but not elsewhere >in Russia. This was an invitational tournament with players from >various parts of Russia. > > There was one additional complication elicited by the AC, but before I >tell you that, how would you rule? We are ruling that South was entitled to his alert. He could not have asked without potential damage to his side, and if this 2C is Drury then it is reasonable to argue that he would have doubled for a Club lead. Our ruling would be 4H-1 (we do not think declarer would play the trumps for no losers.) If it transpired that the partnerships were well known to each other, and their methods were also well known (played in the pivot teams yesterday:-)) then _maybe_ we could be persuaded otherwise. Anne and Ernie > >-- >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 May 27 21:03:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:03:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21235 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:03:04 +1000 (EST) 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 10mvwa-00051u-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:45:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow References: <374CBB77.5CF9B1A2@ehc.edu> In-Reply-To: <374CBB77.5CF9B1A2@ehc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Kuchenbrod wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> I forgot to take note of the actual hand, and have no hand records. >> Vitold may be able to correct it if I have got it wrong. >> >> E/ALL Tx >> Butler Q8xx W N E S >> Kxxx >> AKQxx Kxx xxx P P >> AJ97 KTxx 1S P 2C P >> x AQx 2H P 3H P >> xxx Jxx Txx 4H AP >> x >> Txxxx >> AQxx >Fourteen spades and twelve diamonds. That's the first problem :) Oh, the pedantry of the lad! Ok, amended. >But in all seriousness, what is the actual layout? I don't want >to speculate as to which card goes where. 4H looks makeable even >if one of South's spades is a diamond. Or is the problem that one >of West's spades is a diamond and that he opened 1S with 4423 (or >is this a problem)? 4H is makeable on any lead - but is less likely to be made if three rounds of clubs are cashed first. My own record with two-way finesses for a queen is about 20%! -- 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 May 27 21:03:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:03:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21246 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:03:11 +1000 (EST) 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 10mvwa-00051t-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:16 +0000 Message-ID: <73STqKE3TQT3EwY7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:40:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? References: <000f01bea78b$eed9daa0$5f8d93c3@pacific> <032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> In-Reply-To: <032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F Beye wrote: >> +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? >e.g. #1 P - P - 1H - P > 3H - P - P - X > P - P - P > Our agreement is that we play limit jump raises. the 3H bidder holds: > Jxx Kxxxx Kxxx x > Some ACBLers would have a stroke, since the 3H bidder does not hold 10+, >just short of an opener. I judge this call to be tactical, not psychic (and >in some respects, LTC, a solid limit raise). The bidder has used his bridge >judgement to select the call, that to him, best expresses the playing value >of his hand. Interesting. This seems to be a matter of disclosure rather than anything else. Any player who considers a limit raise requires 10+ HCP must be a near-beginner, or alternatively is trying to get an advantage through the laws [a BL], or has been so fed a silly line of reasoning that they are becoming to believe it. If you polled a group of players in England, where limit raises have been standard for forty years, I would expect the braver ones to bid 4H, and the less brave ones to bid 3H. Only beginners would bid 2H. The bid is certainly not tactical. To be tactical you must be trying to mislead. Here you are merely trying not to miss game as you would do so by bidding 2H. >e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P > 2C - P - 2D - P > P - P > > The 2C bidder holds: > Txx Txxx Txxxx x > Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows >with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand >is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better >his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream >foul. Standard Stayman. Anyone who cries foul is either a BL or a beginner. Perhaps we are beginning to see the problem here. A tactical call in NAmerica is a perfectly reasonable call, which the other side would not make because their judgement is different, so they complain about it. Would someone like to shoot this definition down? -- 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 May 27 21:03:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21239 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:03:08 +1000 (EST) 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 10mvwa-00051r-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:55:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:33:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? References: <032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> <199905261834.LAA22383@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199905261834.LAA22383@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >I'd call this a "tactical call": > >You hold: xx Kxx A AKQJxxx You Partner > 1C 1D(1) (1) tends to deny 4-card major > 2S(2) 3D (2) supposed to be natural, GF > 3NT > >I held this hand, and I got LHO to lead a low heart away from her ace >for 13 tricks (partner had 10x of clubs and the rest of the high >diamonds) despite the fact that partner also had xx in spades. Does your agreement with partner include that 2S may be made on xx? No? Is 2S natural? Yes? Then 2S is a psyche. A tactical call may be considered a distortion for tactical purposes, but a gross deviation in strength and/or values is a psyche. You might easily say that a particular psyche is a tactical call *as well*, but calling something a tactical call does not mean it is not a psyche. -- 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 May 27 21:08:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:08:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21288 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:08:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA09510 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:07:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 27 May 99 12:07 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Where is the claim? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Playing against the ghost of Mr Kaplan he repeats his claim in an identical situation and, holding 1 or 4 diamonds I have two choices. a) face my cards and say "hard luck, one off" knowing that every director in this world or the next, including EK, will rule in my favour. b) ask "what's your line" knowing that EK will *not* take a second round finesse if I follow but giving him a chance to pick up a marked finesse if he draws the right inferences from the auction and that he will not use his table presence to try to infer who holds the singleton. I might choose option B if the table was under time pressure and I was thus sympathetic to EK's problem. Playing against Mr Damien Odgy-Ethics I will choose option a) every time. In DWS's example the ploy reduces the chances of making the contract from "all 2-2 splits+singleton queens+50% of 4-0 splits" to "All 2-2+singleton queens" rather than increasing it by 25%. I am aware that choosing option b) is in breach of the claims laws but feel that doing so does no harm to the game. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 21:08:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:08:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from nickel.cix.co.uk (nickel.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21289 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA09538 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:07:45 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 27 May 99 12:07 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Grattan wrote: > > > > No. I just didn't understand why opponent's surprise or otherwise had > > anything to do with whether or not a psyche was a psyche. > ++ > "A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy so long as it contains the same > element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it does for > opponents. Since this would outlaw psyching against less experienced pairs (the theory that a less experienced player is more likely to be surprised by a psyche than a more experienced one should be uncontentious) the regulation is in conflict with L40A. What is the mechanism for appealing to the WBF just in case I need to know:-) > Systemic psyching of any kind is unlicensed. You > may not use any convention to control a psyche." (EBU > 'white book' of supplementary regulations) ++ > > >Four decent > > players sit down at a table and (nv vs v) the bidding goes p-p-1s- > > none of the players should be surprised if the 1S bid lacks > > values/length for a 1S bid and all, IMO, are entitled to bid > > cautiously in an attempt to find out. ++ I recall one English > > partnership consulting the EBU L&E, some > years ago, about their ultra light openers 3rd-in-hand. They were > told that with four card support (? for a major suit opened) they > must raise directly to the limit opposite a normal strength opening > bid. Any waiting bid would be regarded as a control on the psyche. > Much earlier again than that, I recall Harold Franklin expounding > to the committee on the same theme. ~ Grattan ~ ++ There is, IMO, a world of difference between a pair that systemically bids ultra-light in third and a pair that sometimes opens a Spanish Spade (maybe 1 in 4 of "suitable hands") just like everyone else. I assume QJTxx,AQx,xx,xxx is regarded as a normal 3rd in hand 1S while QJTxx,Jxx,xx,xxx would be regarded as "ultra-light" (and presumably alertable). Outlawing waiting bids effectively prevents (by making way too risky) a 1S psyche on eg x,KQJxxxx,x,QJTx and, since the ultra-light opener is conventional seems like a perfectly reasonable restriction. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 21:25:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:25:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21342 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:24:55 +1000 (EST) 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 NAA01055 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:24:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199905271124.NAA01055@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, 27 May 1999 13:25:49 +0200 Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <004201bea826$581446a0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > HI All! > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> I forgot to take note of the actual hand, and have no hand records. > >> Vitold may be able to correct it if I have got it wrong. > >> > > The the actual hands are: > > > S J84 > H 4 > D 97653 > C AQ53 > > S 653 S AKQ107 > H K1075 H AJ86 > D AQ8 D 4 > C J97 C 1084 > S 92 > H Q932 > D KJ102 > C K62 > Sergey Kapustin > W N E S - - 1S p 2C p 2H p 3H p 4H end If 2C is alertable, the table ruling should be: 4H down one. The AC, however, should take into consideration that, if Drury is as 'standard' as North states, why didn't he double 2C for a club lead? JP From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 21:25:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:25:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA21356 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 21:25:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from p0cs04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.13] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10myHl-0005Fn-00; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:25:17 +0100 Message-ID: <004201bea833$45807ec0$d38b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:08:31 +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: j.rickard@Bristol.ac.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 26 May 1999 18:28 Subject: Re: Where is the claim? >There's a world of difference between showing >your cards as a claim without making any verbal statement because you don't >think it necessary, and fishing for help in making decisions NOT YET MADE on >how to play the hand. > +++ To quote a friend of mine (!) : "Amen". Grattan +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 22:04:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:04:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21445 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:03:52 +1000 (EST) 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 IAA13074 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990527080405.006dd29c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:04:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <89f549e8.247d426c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:26 AM 5/26/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: >I am not at all against psychic bids. I am against extending them into >partnership agreements. It is my position that Law 40A specifically permits >psychics, and I am for that. My objection is to their, to me, devious use by >agreement couched in the terms of ".......my partner has been known to psyche >in these circumstances, and therefor my bidding may be affected by that >knowledge..." Reading a psychic bid for that reason is against the Law IMO. That seems to be the official position of the ACBL. But the understanding is that "partner has been known to" means he did it once before in his lifetime. Everybody should be allowed to psych once in his bridge-playing career; it doesn't become presumptively suspect until you do it a second time. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 22:09:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:09:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21483 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:08:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfcs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.253] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10myxk-00050n-00; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:08:41 +0100 Message-ID: <00b301bea839$55847960$fd8193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "wayne" , Subject: Re: Wayne's Law & partner's unawareness. Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:03:10 +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: 27 May 1999 05:48 Subject: Re: Wayne's Law & partner's unawareness. >Grattan wrote: >> ------------ \x/ ---------------- > >Note "habitual violations ... *may* create implicit agreements" my >emphasis. This means that they will not necessarily create an >agreement. I guess that there is a judgment as to when that happens. > --------------- \x/ ---------------- .> >Random (in terms of frequency or regularity) psyches are not >restricted. If I psyche three times tonight then not again for six >months and then only once and again the next week and then some time >next August I would not see this as habitual. But some Regulating >Authorities would disapprove. > ++++ The exercise which I encourage is to ask oneself "When does it lodge in the partner's mind that "oh, he has a habit of doing that" ? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 22:09:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:09:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21484 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:08:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfcs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.253] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10myxm-00050n-00; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:08:43 +0100 Message-ID: <00b401bea839$56aaf800$fd8193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:04:05 +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 Date: 26 May 1999 20:49 Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) >On Wed, 26 May 1999 11:48:53 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >>I believe this matter settled by Grattan's intervention >Jesper wrote: >I do not :-) > +++ Nor do I. I do think we have exhausted useful discussion. ~Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 22:09:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:09:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21495 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:09:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pfcs01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.253] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10myxi-00050n-00; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:08:39 +0100 Message-ID: <00b201bea839$543defa0$fd8193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: L57 and the tense past and future Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:47:13 +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: 26 May 1999 20:49 Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) >On Wed, 26 May 1999 02:20:40 +0100, "Grattan" > wrote: >>+++ I would not presume to say where the WBFLC would stand today >>until it has looked at the question. I have sent to blml a little earlier a >>comment on the drafting of this law. The device of allowing something >>to happen by saying it will not be penalized is not strange to EK's >>approach and I do think that is where he stood. > >That an action is not to be penalized is not the same as its being >allowed. If the WBFLC writes something in the laws, it should be >prepared for people to assume that it means what it says. > +++++ I accept this is your opinion of how the laws should be worded. I think it is apparent to you that I have much sympathy with it. But my frequent discussions with Edgar never persuaded him, and he framed the language in the way that he considered appropriate. At times I am sure that he left himself gateways of interpretation quite deliberately (and almost certainly at times to give himself room for manoeuvre with his ACBL colleagues). For the present we are where we are and no amount of assertion will alter it; we have to work with what we have until it changes - and part of what we have is the intention of the framing and Edgar's views on that. But be of good cheer. The WBF President is leading us into development of a universal bridge jurisprudence, with principles mandatory for all. I strongly support the aim and if we get anywhere, as I hope we will, there will surely be work on the laws before 2007 - indeed, very soon. ~Grattan~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 22:15:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:15:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21534 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:15:01 +1000 (EST) 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 IAA25181 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990527081524.006d9d38@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:15:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <37540d67.2171682@post.tele.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:09 PM 5/26/99 GMT, Bertel wrote: >Wed, 26 May 1999 14:28:43 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) skrev Jeremy >Rickard: > >>> AJT9 opposite K8xxx, > >>In your example, declarer lies (when he says "I'm making this if >>trumps are 2-2"). > >Can you explain why that is a lie? > >>was lying. That makes a huge ethical difference. > >I don't see why. The real question is whether it is okay to >suggest a certain play and base the real play on the opponents' >(eventually missing) reaction. I don't see the problem. Declarer's statement is a claim (it "refer[s] to tricks other than the one currently in progress" and "suggests that play be curtailed"), with the stated intention to play for trumps 2-2. If they are (or if the Q is singleton) he makes all the tricks in the suit. He cannot change his stated intention at the point where the opponents react, which is subsequent to the claim. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 22:24:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:24:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21570 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:24:17 +1000 (EST) 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 10mzCg-000NmY-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:24:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:38:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <89f549e8.247d426c@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <89f549e8.247d426c@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes >In a message dated 5/25/99 9:49:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >john@probst.demon.co.uk writes: > >> I think I'm saddened that it appears that Kojak feels that psyches are >> not part of bridge. To me a well turned psyche (good or bad result >> doesn't matter) is a thing of joy to all players at the table. >I am not at all against psychic bids. I am against extending them into >partnership agreements. It is my position that Law 40A specifically permits >psychics, and I am for that. My objection is to their, to me, devious use by >agreement couched in the terms of ".......my partner has been known to psyche >in these circumstances, and therefor my bidding may be affected by that >knowledge..." Reading a psychic bid for that reason is against the Law IMO. In that case Kojak my apologies, I had misinterpreted the intent of your posting. In a partnership with an 'active' style one needs to bend over backwards to punish partner's presumed transgressions for several reasons. 1) it keeps him honest more of the time 2) it keeps the NYPD at bay 3) it keeps one's nose clean with the other players Thanks for clarifying your position. 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 May 27 22:26:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:26:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA21599 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:26:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.78.230]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990527122554.GACY7248@default>; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:25:54 +0000 Message-ID: <00f501bea83b$f417f460$e64e4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000f01bea78b$eed9daa0$5f8d93c3@pacific><032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> <73STqKE3TQT3EwY7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 07:24:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 > Perhaps we are beginning to see the problem here. A tactical call in > NAmerica is a perfectly reasonable call, which the other side would not > make because their judgement is different, so they complain about it. > Would someone like to shoot this definition down? > W E L L D E F I N E D! Thanks, David, for stating the problem so clearly. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 23:02:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:02:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA21667 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:02:44 +1000 (EST) 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, 27 May 1999 14:02:30 +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 OAA11338 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:01:07 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <199905261627.MAA17246@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:58:05 +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 David Grabiner wrote: > The problem with this is that expert declarers are likely to be able to > make use of table presence. For example, which defender objects? > > AQ92 > > KT54 > > "If trumps are 3-2, I will take three trumps, then do ..." > > Is the defender with four trumps or one trump more likely to be the one > who objects? Could declarer draw an inference which was more reliable > than 50-50? I agree. This is one of the practical problems that makes me think it shouldn't be allowed. But I'm not confident that there's no way round these problems. Jeremy. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 23:03:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:03:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA21671 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:02:48 +1000 (EST) 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, 27 May 1999 14:02:31 +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 NAA11205 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:58:16 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <376080ad.4556551@post.tele.dk> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:55:14 +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 Bertel wrote: > Wed, 26 May 1999 16:16:52 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) skrev Jeremy > Rickard: > > >In principle though, I wouldn't be too worried if it were allowed > >in *precisely* the following situation: > > Wouldn't it be much simpler to run the trumps and then > claim/play? That would even be legal. Maybe the choice of lines is between drawing two rounds of trumps ending in dummy and drawing two rounds of trumps ending in hand: both work if trumps are 2-2, but there are complicated entry considerations if trumps are 3-1. Does anybody know any details of the Kaplan hand? I've only ever seen it described in very general terms, and it might be easier to argue if we knew what we were arguing about. Jeremy. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 23:17:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:17:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA21736 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:17:46 +1000 (EST) 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, 27 May 1999 14:17:30 +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 OAA11696 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:16:18 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Reply-To: "Rickard, Jeremy" To: BLML Subject: Re: Where is the claim? In-Reply-To: <685d5f85.247d8307@aol.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:13:16 +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 Wed, 26 May 1999 13:01:59 EDT Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > The Laws define correct procedure up to and including claims. No where have > I read in the Laws where questions,comments, actions, of this nature are > allowed. I've probably been unclear about my position. I totally agree that it *isn't* allowed. I was addressing the more interesting (to me) question of whether it *should* be allowed. > There's a world of difference between showing > your cards as a claim without making any verbal statement because you don't > think it necessary, and fishing for help in making decisions NOT YET MADE on > how to play the hand. Of course. But I don't believe Kaplan was fishing for help. Maybe he was naive in thinking that he would get the answer to his question without any other extraneous information. But I've seen nothing to make me think his intentions were any more dishonourable than those of the who experts who indulge in the more common forms of illegal but timesaving manouevres such as claiming without claiming. Jeremy. --------------------------------------------- Jeremy Rickard J.Rickard@bristol.ac.uk Tel:- 0117 9287989 Fax:- 0117 9287999 http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 23:39:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:39:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21824 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:39:41 +1000 (EST) 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 10n0Ne-0009Pk-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:39:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:36:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? 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: >Grattan wrote: >> ++ >> "A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy so long as it contains the same >> element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it does for >> opponents. >Since this would outlaw psyching against less experienced pairs (the >theory that a less experienced player is more likely to be surprised by a >psyche than a more experienced one should be uncontentious) the regulation >is in conflict with L40A. What is the mechanism for appealing to the WBF >just in case I need to know:-) The definition is flawed. A better definition would be: >> "A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy so long as it contains the same >> element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it would for >> opponents of similar standard. -- 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 May 27 23:54:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:54:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (int-gu.gu.net [194.93.160.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21860 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:54:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk.int.kiev.ua (pc144.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.144]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA03326 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 17:00:25 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <007a01bea847$f5ec48c0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:51:00 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >> S J84 >> H 4 >> D 97653 >> C AQ53 >> >> S 653 S AKQ107 >> H K1075 H AJ86 >> D AQ8 D 4 >> C J97 C 1084 >> S 92 >> H Q932 >> D KJ102 >> C K62 > >W N E S >- - 1S p >2C p 2H p >3H p 4H end > Jan Peter Pals wrote >If 2C is alertable, the table ruling should be: 4H down one. >The AC, however, should take into consideration that, if Drury is as >'standard' as North states, why didn't he double 2C for a club lead? >JP > Drury is not a 'standard' on this International Tournament. It is standard in Moscow's club. Both pares are from Moscow. So the question is - is it legal to use club_level_knowledge in TD|AC ruling? IMHO - No. Anne and Ernie wrote: >Our ruling would be 4H-1 (we do not think declarer would play the trumps >for no losers.) Agree >If it transpired that the partnerships were well known to each other, and >their methods were also well known (played in the pivot teams yesterday:-)) >then _maybe_ we could be persuaded otherwise. Not agree. They could change their methods 15 seconds before and 2C is really natural. Cheers Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 27 23:55:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:55:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (int-gu.gu.net [194.93.160.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21875 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:55:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk.int.kiev.ua (pc144.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.144]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA03338 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 17:01:36 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <008201bea848$1faa03a0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:52:12 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Kuchenbrod wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> I forgot to take note of the actual hand, and have no hand records. >>> Vitold may be able to correct it if I have got it wrong. >>> >>> E/ALL Tx >>> Butler Q8xx W N E S >>> Kxxx >>> AKQxx Kxx xxx P P >>> AJ97 KTxx 1S P 2C P >>> x AQx 2H P 3H P >>> xxx Jxx Txx 4H AP >>> x >>> Txxxx >>> AQxx > >>Fourteen spades and twelve diamonds. That's the first problem :) > > Oh, the pedantry of the lad! Ok, amended. > >>But in all seriousness, what is the actual layout? I don't want >>to speculate as to which card goes where. 4H looks makeable even >>if one of South's spades is a diamond. Or is the problem that one >>of West's spades is a diamond and that he opened 1S with 4423 (or >>is this a problem)? > > 4H is makeable on any lead - but is less likely to be made if three >rounds of clubs are cashed first. My own record with two-way finesses >for a queen is about 20%! > And after 4 rounds of clubs declarer will have big problems. Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 00:04:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 00:04:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA21913 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 00:04:05 +1000 (EST) 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 AA165513831; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:03:52 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA026043830; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:03:50 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:03:38 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: 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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id AAA21915 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Furthermore, your interpretation makes *both* headings incorrect. >Yes, we all know that headings are not part of the Law, but they are >clearly pointers to when a Law should be used. The heading for L7 is >"CONTROL OF BOARD AND CARDS" and that hardly includes whether the >opponents are the correct ones. The heading for L7D is "Responsibility >for Procedures" and again it is not a procedure whether the opponents >are correct. > > It is not logical nor sensible to extend this Law to make a stationary >pair responsible for anything the opponents might do. That is properly >the responsibility of the Director, and I believe the correct >interpretation of this Law is that a stationary pair is primarily >responsible for the conditions of play at the table as far as the >control of the board and the cards is concerned. > ########## I missed the start of this thread so please forgive me if I'm > going over old ground. L5B says "*each* player is responsible for moving > when and as directed and for occupying the correct seat after each change." > The old EBL Commentary specifically stated that the stationary pair were > *not* responsible for ensuring that the correct opponents were at the table. > Put these two together and it seems clear to me that the stationary pair do > not have to check that the correct opponents are at the table now. ######## I started this thread some times ago, saying I was not confortable letting a top to a N-S pair and take no other action when they played a board against wrong pair (applying only Law 17). The main question is still on table: Does the stationnary pair have to check against who they are playing? You (and David) said No, some others said Yes...... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 00:45:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 00:45:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24298 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 00:44:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA19889 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:44:15 GMT Message-ID: <374D5A42.ABDD1AE5@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:44:18 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: BLML Subject: Re: Where is the claim? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard a écrit : > Bertel wrote: > > > Wed, 26 May 1999 16:16:52 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) skrev Jeremy > > Rickard: > > > > >In principle though, I wouldn't be too worried if it were allowed > > >in *precisely* the following situation: > > > > Wouldn't it be much simpler to run the trumps and then > > claim/play? That would even be legal. > > Maybe the choice of lines is between drawing two rounds of > trumps ending in dummy and drawing two rounds of trumps > ending in hand: both work if trumps are 2-2, but there are > complicated entry considerations if trumps are 3-1. > > Does anybody know any details of the Kaplan hand? I've only > ever seen it described in very general terms, and it might > be easier to argue if we knew what we were arguing about. > > Jeremy. This hand was played, about 15 or 20 years ago in the final stages of Spingold or Vanderbilt, and reported (by E. Kaplan) in the Bridge World (anyone to look for the issue?). As long as I remember, Kaplan's only problem was to guess suit, not to lose a trick to the jack with AQ109 in front of K876. He made his partial claim to spare time, was forced to take some thinking when opponents' silence told him about bad break and finally guessed right. Nobody had bad feelings nor reacted and it's only some months later in his magazine report that E.K. exposed the problem: what would have happened if, in place of him, a perverse declarer had guessed wrong on the second round of the suit, then unethically taken advantage of the situation with a 2nd round finesse of the jack? What law could have used TD to punish this robbery? I can see an analogy with the recent "UI Insurance" discussion: What is the legal strength of a promise made by a player? (here the promise to choose a line taking account of all 3-2 breaks). In this case, it could be said the partial claim was an help to opponents, allowing the owner of the 4-carder not to forget to contribute with the less meaningful of his spot cards on the first round. Incidentally, we were not, at the beginning, arguing about this hand but about a deal played in Bonn a few weeks ago. 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 May 28 00:54:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 00:54:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.emr.ca [132.156.47.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA24332 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 00:54:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA25441 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:54:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199905271454.KAA25441@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Where is the claim? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:54:21 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Jeremy Rickard" at May 27, 99 01:55:14 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard writes: > > Maybe the choice of lines is between drawing two rounds of > trumps ending in dummy and drawing two rounds of trumps > ending in hand: both work if trumps are 2-2, but there are > complicated entry considerations if trumps are 3-1. > > Does anybody know any details of the Kaplan hand? I've only > ever seen it described in very general terms, and it might > be easier to argue if we knew what we were arguing about. I can no longer locate the hand, but I'm pretty confident of the details. (bearing in mind that it happened 2 decades ago) The sole point of the hand was to avoid a trump loser. In the other room, the opposition bid and made 7NT without needing to bring in diamonds. Memory also says that there were distributional clues from the auction which Kaplan used to guess the suit correctly. Not wanting to put words in Kaplan's mouth, but he seemed to only realize the potential ethical problems after he made his non-claim. If it matters, I'm moderately confident that the opposition was Eisenberg-Kantar. With Hamman-Wolff in the other room. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 01:44:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:44:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24452 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:44:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id KAA26535 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:45:12 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199905271545.KAA26535@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:45:12 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Richard F Beye wrote: > > >> +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? > > >e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P > > 2C - P - 2D - P > > P - P > > > > The 2C bidder holds: > > Txx Txxx Txxxx x > > Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows > >with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand > >is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better > >his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream > >foul. > > Standard Stayman. Anyone who cries foul is either a BL or a beginner. My partner made exactly this bid with almost exactly this hand two weeks ago in a club [in ACBLland], and earned himself a Director call when his hand was revealed. The person who called was not a BL [his partner was, but he beat her to the call], and is a Lifemaster [which certainly is not a mark of great honor these days, but is at least beyond the rank of 'beginner' :)]. He claimed that all our Stayman calls should be alerted. Fortunately, the TD knew what she was doing and defused the situation. > Perhaps we are beginning to see the problem here. A tactical call in > NAmerica is a perfectly reasonable call, which the other side would not > make because their judgement is different, so they complain about it. > Would someone like to shoot this definition down? No, I'd say this is quite accurate. Except they don't call them tactical calls, they call them 'psyches', and are pretty sure there's a rule against them somewhere. [Many people think there's a law forbidding more than one psyche per session, and so call the director every time you bid something they wouldn't have bid, in order to make sure the TD knows you've made your one allotted psyche.] Again, I am not talking about beginners here, unfortunately. [All this despite the fact that I am one of those players who, in fact, _never_ psyches, and in fact would have ruled against the player who made the bid that started this thread.] > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 01:51:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:51:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24476 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA08143; Thu, 27 May 1999 08:50:46 -0700 Message-Id: <199905271550.IAA08143@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 May 1999 09:33:49 PDT." Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 08:50:46 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >I'd call this a "tactical call": > > > >You hold: xx Kxx A AKQJxxx You Partner > > 1C 1D(1) (1) tends to deny 4-card major > > 2S(2) 3D (2) supposed to be natural, GF > > 3NT > > > >I held this hand, and I got LHO to lead a low heart away from her ace > >for 13 tricks (partner had 10x of clubs and the rest of the high > >diamonds) despite the fact that partner also had xx in spades. > > Does your agreement with partner include that 2S may be made on xx? > No? Is 2S natural? Yes? Then 2S is a psyche. > > A tactical call may be considered a distortion for tactical purposes, > but a gross deviation in strength and/or values is a psyche. You might > easily say that a particular psyche is a tactical call *as well*, but > calling something a tactical call does not mean it is not a psyche. Well, I guess I'm 0-for-2 on this one. I don't know where I first read a definition of "tactical", but I guess the definition I've been using doesn't match anyone else's. It's no problem---I can change my use of the language. The only important thing is that those who make regulations are clear on what they mean by the terms they use. But the other examples of "tactical" bids I've seen here seem like normal bridge to me, so perhaps there's no useful definition of the term, other than the wonderful cynical definition David offered. (I think my [possibly incorrect] understanding of the terms was that a tactical bid is a bid designed to mislead the opponents in a certain specific way, while a psych is a more random action to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings and hope it hurts the opponents more than it hurts your side. Sort of like spraying gunfire from an assault weapon at random and hoping the bullets hit your enemies and not your friends.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 01:58:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:58:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA24506 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:57:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id KAA29845 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 10:58:39 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199905271558.KAA29845@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:58:38 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >Why would you want to take action against N-S? S committed an infraction > > >and has paid the penalty. N's right to psych is protected by L40A, which, > > >in my lawbook, doesn't say anything about S's being barred compromising > > >that right. > > > > No, it does not, but it also does not say that you can use UI in > > deciding to psyche. The psyche itself is based on the UI that partner > > has not got an opening bid, so is suggested over passing by this, is it > > not? > > > > I find it impossible in logic to agree with this last sentence. > > 1. None of my bids necessarily mean what is written on my convention > card when partner is barred and everyone (bridge experience) at the > table knows this so to start with it is a moot point what exactly is a > psyche in this situation. Except that: a) Partner is not barred from the auction, he is only barred for a single round. Most bids in such situations can at least be expected to conform in some ways to the player's hand. b) Whether we call it a 'psyche' or not, there is still a very useful distinction to be made between a constructive bid that attempts to arrive at a sensible contract despite the infraction, and a purely destructive deceptive bid that tries only to destroy the opponents' auction. The main danger of _purely_ destructive bids is that partner will believe them and bid accordingly. A barred partner cannot do so, at least on the first round. Therefore making such a bid is, in my opinion, not merely an attempt to 'get the best result given the penalty', but is in fact an attempt to benefit from the penalty itself. I think such behavior is unethical, and in this case at least is also illegal. > 2. Presumably the AI information that I am allowed to base my actions > on is that partner has 13 cards and if I have n hcp then I must be able > to bid based on partner having (40-n)/3 pts on average. e.g. if I have > 18 pts I can expect on average partner to have (40-18)/3 = 7 1/3 with > this AI I would be entitled to bid what I think is the best game (on > average) OR if I have 7 pts I can expect on average partner to have > (40-7)/3 = 11 pts so why can I not offer a low-level partscore? > > Incidentally, I have run some simulations to try and determine what is > the UI that knowing partner has a partscore is and I found: > > Points Held Partner's average (AI) Partner's average (UI) > less than opening > ================================================================ > 0 13.3 8.4 > 6 11.3 8.2 > 10 10 7.5 > 13 9 7.5 > 16 8 6.9 > 20 6.7 5.6 > 23 5.7 5.3 > > My conclusion from this is on average at least the unauthorized > information is only worth about a trick and that it possibly could > influence an underbid when opener has a good hand (say 16 pts) where a > game is reasonable but perhaps a little aggressive with the AI (combined > 24 pts on average) but a little pushy with UI (combined 22.9pts on > average). > > So my thinking (AI IMO) holding a below average hand would go: partner > is barred; I have 7 pts I can expect a some from partner; Is there a > tactical bid that I would like to make and L72A5 allows me to choose any > call that I think will be advantageous to our side. But, in fact, there is a significant difference in my mind from "I have 7 points and partner has 11.3", and "I have 7 points and partner has 8.2 and definately not 13+". In the latter case opponents very possibly have game themselves--in the former case, they likely do not. This makes disrupting their auction _much_ more appealing, and attempting a constructive auction ourselves correspondingly less appealing. > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >But the psych is much less dangerous when partner is known not to have > > >opening bid strength. The decision to psych was likely to have been > > >based on the UI of the withdrawn pass, hence was illegal per L16C2. > > > > Exactly. > > But this is a consequence of the Laws. It is a consequence of L16 that one cannot make such bids, yes. :) > Wayne -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 02:05:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:05:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24692 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:05:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id LAA01808 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:06:02 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199905271606.LAA01808@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:06:02 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, > East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a losing > spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two tricks to > West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the winning spade, > and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his concession back, > because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at trick twelve for a > two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only give him a one-trick > penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we restore equity, or do we > resolve a doubtful point in favour of declarer? > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Declarer has made a concession. I assume that the defenders have acquiesed in the concession. Declarer can now withdraw his concession only according to L71. Nothing in L71 allows that in this case. I rule concession cannot be withdrawn. If we turn to L64C, it surely seems that equity cannot call for a two-trick penalty. So declarer cannot ask for two tricks in this regard. Concession will not be withdrawn, one trick penalty. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 02:20:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:20:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from minerva.pinehurst.net (root@minerva.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24755 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:20:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (3com-72.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.72]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA26825 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <374D727B.E11CBB5F@pinehurst.net> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:27:39 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: <00b401bea839$56aaf800$fd8193c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In following this discussion, I think if we ever got to the point where we had to call a director because declarer played from dummy almost simultaneously (before LHO) after his lead, we would not have time to play bridge, in most of the local clubs at least. Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Every place swarms with commentaries; of authors > there is a great scarcity." = Montaigne. > ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| > ||||||||||||||||||||llllllllllllllllllllll > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: Bridge Laws > Date: 26 May 1999 20:49 > Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) > > >On Wed, 26 May 1999 11:48:53 +0200, Herman De Wael > > wrote: > > > >>I believe this matter settled by Grattan's intervention > > >Jesper wrote: > >I do not :-) > > > +++ Nor do I. > I do think we have exhausted useful discussion. > ~Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 02:45:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f296.hotmail.com [207.82.251.187]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA24829 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:45:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 87453 invoked by uid 0); 27 May 1999 16:45:14 -0000 Message-ID: <19990527164514.87452.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:45:13 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:45:13 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Richard F Beye" > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > > > There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North > > >American bridge-playing population that a psych is never a > legitimate >ploy. They see the protected status of psychs (per > L40A) as a "loophole" >of which only the somewhat unscrupulous > would take advantage, and would >ban them entirely > > if the laws allowed. > >I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there >is a >failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and >a tactical >call within a large segment of the North American >contingient. I respectfully disagree :-). I believe that, at least in my part of the ACBL (Southern Ontario), there is a large segment of the bridge-playing population that holds the person termed a "Psycher" with the same respect they hold someone termed a "Cheater" - except, of course, it isn't a breach of ethics to claim someone psychs at the bridge table. I believe that a large segment of that segment either does not know or does not believe that Law 40A exists, and certainly has not read it nor has had it read to them. I believe also that most of these have "never profited" from an opponent's psych that went wrong, because they never realize that the +1400 they got was at least partially due to the 8-card trump fit they held, and not just their brilliant defence. I believe also, that very few of the "very good" or "expert" players in the area (as opposed to those Flight A players who have got their 600 masterpoints 20 points a year, adjusted for inflation, for 20 years) that would do anything more than say "Nicely done, . You got me. Director, please...I'd like to record a psych." - provided it was an EBU "Green" one, of course :-). I believe, finally, that this is a woeful state of affairs. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 02:52:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:52:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f17.hotmail.com [207.82.250.28]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA24846 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:52:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 68262 invoked by uid 0); 27 May 1999 16:52:08 -0000 Message-ID: <19990527165208.68261.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 May 1999 09:52:08 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:52:08 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >If the transfer comes after opener has had a chance to rebid (whether >or >not he did so), and the transfer bid is 4D or 4H, then it is not >Announced, and becomes the subject of a "Post-Alert," which comes >after >the auction is over (or after play is over, for defenders). Marvin has done and continues to do a useful and thankless task attempting to rewrite the ACBL Alert regulations to make them usable for mortals. However, I believe the parenthetical statement is in error (though I am willing to be convinced otherwise). Here is the quote from the Alert Pamphlet on the ACBL's web page : The DEFENDERS are REQUIRED to Alert declarer AFTER the OPENING LEAD but BEFORE declarer makes a play from dummy. Alerting before the dummy is spread is best. It is understandable that this is different from a "failure to alert" case, but, unfortunately, yet another confusion. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 02:54:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:54:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24860 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 02:54:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-240.uunet.be [194.7.13.240]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA22560 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 18:54:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374D5836.D2177C5B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:35:34 +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 is AI for fielding a psyche? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > The definition is flawed. A better definition would be: > > >> "A psychic bid is a legitimate ploy so long as it contains the same > >> element of surprise for the psycher's partner as it would for > >> opponents of similar standard. > I don't know why you would want to define a psyche. A psyche is defined in the Laws (".. a gross misstatement.."). By definition a (more or less regular) partner is less surprised at the particular type of psyche that someone effects as the opponents. When this becomes too clear to this partner, he is obliged to inform the opponents as it is "knowledge from partnership experience". What is important is that a priori, a partner does not know whether or not the psyche is this time or not. What is also important is that the system does not contain trap mechanisms to counter it's negative effects. There is a delicate triangle here, and I have already posted several times about it, and I am (as usual) in a small minority. Special Psyching habits of a player Information to Opponents Possible Illegality of System It is my opinion that it is possible for a partnership to have experience about psyches, that these should be told to opponents, but that they need not constitute systemic agreements, liable to being regulated upon. This seems natural and logical to me, as otherwise it would lead to any partnership being able to psyche just once ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 03:03:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 03:03:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24894 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 03:02:54 +1000 (EST) 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 10n3YH-000Hym-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 17:02:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:05:17 +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 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 Mary Crenshaw Dickens 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 Brian Meadows Katy Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Casey, Yazzer-Cat Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz 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 the article on his Catpage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/rbridge.htm Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 03:46:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 03:46:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24958 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 03:46:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA21754; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:45:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.85) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021727; Thu May 27 12:45:35 1999 Received: by har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEA846.F2C49860@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:43:48 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEA846.F2C49860@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Grattan'" Subject: RE: Wayne's Law & partner's unawareness. Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:42:34 -0400 Encoding: 36 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: wayne > And the converse [of this] is that if my partner will take my bid for what > it is by explicit partnership agreement, unless she has direct evidence > to the contrary (AI from the hand in progress), then I should be allowed > to psyche as often as I like. > ++++ In taking this view what is your reaction to the Law 75B reference to 'habitual violations' ? And, second question, do you not think that in 75B the words "so long as his partner is unaware of the violation" inhibit any practice by which you can go on psyching at will provided partner will ignore what experience of the partnership is telling her and simply continue the auction on the basis of your bids being all genuine? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ I for one might like Wayne's view to be what the Laws say...but it is not. I hate that I may not psych just because partner might guess that is what it up from experience. But let's take Wayne's idea a step further, presuming an ethical partner. Were Wayne's concept law, there would have to be very clear evidence that all of partner's actions met the standard of non-fielding very unambiguously whenever such a psych(e) worked out well, else the opponents should gain adjustment. In other words, you could do it, but there would be a strong presumption toward losing any gain thereby in any case where partner's action was even close. This in turn could lead to the potential psycher slightly underbidding more solid hands in the knowledge that partner is going to be ethically constrained to bid the maximum to avoid reading a putative psych and could create the foreseeable problems of a CPU in the greater number of hands in which there was approximate conformance to system. It would seem to open a rather large can of worms. No, much as I wish it would, this dog won't hunt. Score another point for the wisdom of the lawmakers. Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 03:47:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 03:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24981 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 03:47:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA14250; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:46:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.85) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014168; Thu May 27 12:45:25 1999 Received: by har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEA846.EF64F2A0@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 27 May 1999 13:43:43 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEA846.EF64F2A0@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Grattan'" Cc: "twm@cix.compulink.co.uk" Subject: RE: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:30:31 -0400 Encoding: 33 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads:>Four decent > players sit down at a table and (nv vs v) the bidding goes p-p-1s- none of > the players should be surprised if the 1S bid lacks values/length for a 1S > bid and all, IMO, are entitled to bid cautiously in an attempt to find > out. Grattan:++ I recall one English partnership consulting the EBU L&E, some years ago, about their ultra light openers 3rd-in-hand. They were told that with four card support (? for a major suit opened) they must raise directly to the limit opposite a normal strength opening bid. Any waiting bid would be regarded as a control on the psyche. Much earlier again than that, I recall Harold Franklin expounding to the committee on the same theme. ~ Grattan ~ ++ By a normal strength opening do you mean such as would typically be played in third seat, or normal strength for 1st & 2nd? The latter seems to be correct ethics, the latter is rather absurd since general bridge knowledge should cause one to suspect that a third seat open, especially at green or white may well be somewhat light. That partner opens the odd 7 or 8 count on occasion should not force you to bid 3M with 9 hcp or forbid the use of Drury if the bid normally has an 11-15 range. Or would Drury become a psychic control in this situation, thereby barring the super-light psych of 1M? Craig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 04:07:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 04:07:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com (inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com [192.86.155.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA25150 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 04:07:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailsun2.us.oracle.com (mailsun2.us.oracle.com [144.25.88.74]) by inet-user-gw-1.us.oracle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23447; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dlsun565.us.oracle.com by mailsun2.us.oracle.com with ESMTP (SMI-8.6/37.8) id LAA01449; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:06:50 -0700 Received: (from jboyce@localhost) by dlsun565.us.oracle.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA06248; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:07:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Boyce Message-Id: <199905271807.LAA06248@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> To: hermandw@village.uunet.be CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3743DAAD.EFCA32C7@village.uunet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Thu, 20 May 1999 11:49:33 +0200) Subject: Re: Enforced passes (theory) was: OPENING PASS ... Reply-to: jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, [North is dealer; South commits an Opening Pass out of turn.] Jim Boyce wrote: > > > But here a few observations: > a) If West and North would both normally open, you are probably ahead > of the field if you accept the POOT and bid normally. > b) If North and South are both normally passing, it often doesn't > really matter which of East and West bids first. > c) If the par result of the hand is North-South positive, expecially > if it is a big positive, you probably want North to guess. > and Herman DE WAEL responded: HDW HDW conclusion : if West has an opening bid, he should accept HDW the POOT. HDW HDW Since this is not an agreement with partner, it is alright HDW for us to tell even ACBL members. HDW This leads to several questions. Hereafter, North is dealer, South commits an OPOOT, and West does not accept. 1) Is it "general bridge knowledge" that West should accept the POOT when he has an opening bid? I really don't know; I believe that you can reach that conclusion reasoning from first principles, but many people have never had a reason to think about it. I am not sure that it is obvious without a certain amount of thought. Whether or not it is general bridge knowledge that West should accept with an opening bid, West can believe that he should. And any of North, South, or East might know of West's belief. Is the Information that West probably does not have an opening bid AI or UI ... 2) to East? 3) to North or South? 4) And, finally, if East knows of West's belief, does East have a disclosure responsibility at this point? Are N/S entitled to know that West probably does not have an opening bid? -jim From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 04:27:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 04:27:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA25239 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 04:27:08 +1000 (EST) 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 LAA13295 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02d901bea86e$7c7eb460$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <374D5836.D2177C5B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 11:22:17 -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 De Wael wrote: > > It is my opinion that it is possible for a partnership to > have experience about psyches, that these should be told to > opponents, but that they need not constitute systemic > agreements, liable to being regulated upon. > > This seems natural and logical to me, as otherwise it would > lead to any partnership being able to psyche just once ! > Or falsecard! The same laws that cover psychs apply to deceptive plays as well, and I don't understand why psychs are being treated as a separate subject entirely. We all know situations in which a good partner will falsecard automatically, but we don't have to disclose that to the opponents. It's an implicit partnership agreement gained from partnership experience, but not a *special* partnership agreement, and it is only *special* agreements/understandings that must be disclosed. For instance, partner follows with the queen from Q9 of trumps when declarer leads low from dummy's J82. Sitting over declarer with K54, I do not play the king after declarer wins the ace and leads towards dummy's jack, as I might with a novice partner, because I have seen partner falsecard in this situation on previous occasions. Instead of winning and preserving a small trump for an unlikely ruff, or to lead it to a third round of trumps, I cooperate by allowing for a falsecard. This is just good bridge, nothing *special*, and I think whatever principles are involved here should also apply to psychs. A high-ranking ACBL official once told me that I should disclose the fact that partner is prone to falsecarding against novices with the ace or queen over the KJ in dummy. As is a common ploy, he will make a discouraging discard with the ace and an encouraging one with the queen, especially when it's obvious I am going to be leading the suit. I know he does this, and I take advantage of this knowledge when I can. Am I supposed to turn to declarer and say, "Partner is likely to be falsecarding in this situation"? I don't think so. Our understanding is that high cards enourage and low cards discourage, and that is all I must disclose. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 05:04:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 05:04:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25345 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 05:03:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA03800; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:03:18 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-21.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.85) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma003695; Thu May 27 14:02:54 1999 Received: by har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEA851.C1DC2500@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 27 May 1999 15:01:11 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEA851.C1DC2500@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Michael Farebrother'" Subject: RE: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:47:50 -0400 Encoding: 86 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I respectfully agree with Michael and Eric...again:-)) There are those Central Pennsylvania novices and club players who have a strong anti-psych bias. They also hated weak 2's and fought negative doubles. They do not understand that 4NT can ever be quantitative and think RKCB is a Communist plot. They think transfers make one's honesty suspect and cannot comprehend such new-fangled methods as Lavinthal discards. (Yes, they are mostly the same ones.) Younger, better players mostly have been spared this attitude of the stodgy butcher thank goodness. Some of them have even RTFLB. (But not too many) {By the way, I expect Eric sees far less of them at Armory Place or Alexandria that I would in Lancaster or Chambersburg or Michael might in London or Hull...the greater D.C. area has more of a bridge sophistication than some areas. Would this be true in reverse for the UK London and Lancaster? } The question must be does the worldwide bridge community want to poison the game to satisfy the needs and desires of those who play it poorly, don't know its laws, and don't want to change what they have always done? In that case perhaps we ought to dust off our Blue Books and 1938 Acol volumes and make everything else illegal. (Although our bunch would probably be happier with the 1946 edition of Goren). Bridge is sick in North America. Youth is staying away in droves. The more we deter innovation, tactical bidding and play, and innovation in the name of status quo, the more we nail shut the coffin. Barring psychs will kill bridge more surely than allowing the old black magic to resurface. We need a happy medium...but one that permits the greatest possible freedom short of license. Craig ---------- From: Michael Farebrother[SMTP:mdfarebr@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 12:45 PM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? >From: "Richard F Beye" > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > > > There is a very strong feeling among a large segment of the North > > >American bridge-playing population that a psych is never a > legitimate >ploy. They see the protected status of psychs (per > L40A) as a "loophole" >of which only the somewhat unscrupulous > would take advantage, and would >ban them entirely > > if the laws allowed. > >I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there >is a >failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and >a tactical >call within a large segment of the North American >contingient. I respectfully disagree :-). I believe that, at least in my part of the ACBL (Southern Ontario), there is a large segment of the bridge-playing population that holds the person termed a "Psycher" with the same respect they hold someone termed a "Cheater" - except, of course, it isn't a breach of ethics to claim someone psychs at the bridge table. I believe that a large segment of that segment either does not know or does not believe that Law 40A exists, and certainly has not read it nor has had it read to them. I believe also that most of these have "never profited" from an opponent's psych that went wrong, because they never realize that the +1400 they got was at least partially due to the 8-card trump fit they held, and not just their brilliant defence. I believe also, that very few of the "very good" or "expert" players in the area (as opposed to those Flight A players who have got their 600 masterpoints 20 points a year, adjusted for inflation, for 20 years) that would do anything more than say "Nicely done, . You got me. Director, please...I'd like to record a psych." - provided it was an EBU "Green" one, of course :-). I believe, finally, that this is a woeful state of affairs. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 05:33:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 05:33:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f58.hotmail.com [207.82.251.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA25444 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 05:33:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17501 invoked by uid 0); 27 May 1999 19:32:35 -0000 Message-ID: <19990527193235.17500.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 May 1999 12:32:34 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:32:34 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yet another discussion on one of my pet topics. I have waited until now to wade in, because I think I finally have something to say :-). But I am going to make a couple of comments to several messages I've seen as well. Grattan: >Law 40A is adamant that a psyche may not be based on a partnership >understanding. No knowledge of partner's tendencies, no reading in >common >with partner of circumstances as being opportune for a psyche >is AI for >the diagnosis of a psyche. What about knowledge of opponents' tendencies? What happens when I determine, by whatever (legal) means, that there is a psych at the table, and I know that there are the standard two chances (none and a snowball's) that either of my opponents will have done it? And does this imply that I am not allowed to guess, having logically from AI deduced that someone at the table is psyching, that it is my partner because of the knowledge (freely available to the opponents, at least in most places in the world) that we psych "frequently " (say, long-term average, once every two months between the pair), and that our opponents "psych" only when they mis-hear the auction? I know that in the ACBL, the information on psych frequency has been removed from the convention card, so the information isn't freely available. Conversely, am I allowed to guess, having logically from AI deduced that someone at the table is psyching, that it is not my partner, from knowledge of my partner's tendencies? And again: >When the laws refer to a 'psyche' they are referring to a deliberate >violation of announced system for which the partnership is not >prepared. Of course. I wonder what "prepared" means, however. Certainly I have never been in a partnership where we had any sort of control bids for detecting psychs, nor did we arrange our system so that some psychs would be safer because of the expected responses. Nor (see below) have I been in a partnership where our bidding was ever based on "partner _may_ not have his bid" (as opposed to "partner almost certainly doesn't have his bid" or "We're playing in a 60-point deck. I wonder who doesn't have her bid?"). Now Wayne: >This sentence [in L75B] does not say "...unaware of a tendency to >violate agreements...". Sure partner may be aware that I psyched on >the last board, or three weeks ago, or sometime last year but none of >this makes her aware that this call is a violation. More Grattan: >The exercise which I encourage is to ask oneself >"When does it lodge in the partner's mind that "oh, he >has a habit of doing that" ? Here's the key that I wanted to mention. What is "that" that Grattan wants us to ask about? As I said, my partner and I are known to psych. Not often, but my guess would be that if there was a psych at the club we played at, at least 50% of the time, it would be me or my partner, and another 20% of the time it would be a non-deliberate "psych". On the other hand, faulty memory admitted to, I have never made the same psych twice, with any partner. I've psyched a 1S opening several times, sure, but one time it's in first seat, one time third, one time even at unfavourable vulnerability; one time it was a 10-count with 2 small spades, once with KQJTx and out; another time with a 19-point balanced hand with diamonds. First, there is nothing in the world that could cater to "preparing" for all of those bids (except for that famous passed hand "I have a limit raise, partner, were you psyching?" convention that everyone in the ACBL plays :-). Second, my partner never expects it, nor does anything about it until it's obvious - if for no other reason than it would be losing bridge to "cater" to psychic 1S openers, when no more than 1 in 100 are. So the question is: Does the "habit of psyching" cause a problem, or is it only the "habit of psyching this way"? And if it is the "habit of psyching", where is that line? And is it any more reprehensible than the habit of gambling out 3NT after a 3C opener with one suit wide open? or bidding Blackwood with a void, to attempt to elicit a double, or at least a favourable lead? I've said many times, in many forums, I believe that it is good bridge to psych occasionally - frequently enough that everyone around knows that you psych (strangely enough, in this area of the ACBL, word (or should I say grumble) travels fast). This is not because psychs get good scores - they often get bad ones, and at least as often get the same average available without the psych - but because your opponents may start distrusting the information I provide with my bids. But this only pays off if partner _completely believes in every one of my bids, playing as if the possibility of my psyching in this auction is zero._ It means that partner and I can tell the whole world what we have, and our opponents won't play us for it - and that is an advantage; a completely legal and ethical one, I think, too. Eric Landau (from Kojak): >That [bidding affected by knowledge that partner "has been known to >psych >in these circumstances"] seems to be the official position of >the ACBL. >But the understanding is that "partner has been known to" >means he did it >once before in his lifetime. Everybody should be >allowed to psych once in >his bridge-playing career; it doesn't become >presumptively suspect until >you do it a second time. I fully agree with Eric about the "understanding". I also agree that it's much too restrictive. But I don't know where the line is. As a side note, someone mentioned the "once per session" herring - I kind of like that one, from an unethical bridge player point of view. If it were really true, I (were I to wish to be unethical) would make a habit of psyching as soon in the session as I could, safely. Then, my partner and I would know that all our bids were above board for the rest of the night, and my "rep" as a dirty rotten psychist would would be enhanced. And here it would be right to psych against the fish - they're most likely to raise a fuss and spread the story, and they're also the ones against whom I'm least likely to lose with the psych. Speaking of which, is the "concealed partnership understanding" that "we never psych" legal? If not, is it legal if it's not concealed? I.e. if an agreement to psych with a certain frequency is illegal, is an agreement to psych with frequency zero illegal? How about the "concealed partnership understanding" that "partner once bid 1NT with xxx xx xx QJTxxx, the SO says that twice with the same partner is a CPU, and therefore an illegal convention; therefore he can't have psyched 1NT with a weak hand outside our announced 10-12 range"? I know, I know, no answers, only questions. I'm trying to change people's thought of me as an opinionated bastard. Can't change the last part of that, (un)fortunately (paragraph-long :-). Michael. P.S. Please, someone, tell me if my other messages from today were HTML-ized or MIME-ized (or this one, for that matter). I am thinking they may be, despite my earnest desire not to (stupid Hotmail). If they were, I apologize, and will try to fix it. mdf ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 05:50:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 05:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA25510 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 05:50:42 +1000 (EST) 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 10n6Ag-0002qT-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 19:50:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 18:19:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Where is the claim? References: <374D5A42.ABDD1AE5@meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <374D5A42.ABDD1AE5@meteo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA25511 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >Jeremy Rickard a écrit : >> Does anybody know any details of the Kaplan hand? I've only >> ever seen it described in very general terms, and it might >> be easier to argue if we knew what we were arguing about. >This hand was played, about 15 or 20 years ago in the final stages of >Spingold or Vanderbilt, and reported (by E. Kaplan) in the Bridge World >(anyone to look for the issue?). As long as I remember, Kaplan's only >problem was to guess suit, not to lose a trick to the jack with AQ109 in >front of K876. He made his partial claim to spare time, was forced to >take some thinking when opponents' silence told him about bad break and >finally guessed right. Nobody had bad feelings nor reacted and it's only >some months later in his magazine report that E.K. exposed the problem: >what would have happened if, in place of him, a perverse declarer had >guessed wrong on the second round of the suit, then unethically taken >advantage of the situation with a 2nd round finesse of the jack? What >law could have used TD to punish this robbery? I can see an analogy with >the recent "UI Insurance" discussion: What is the legal strength of a >promise made by a player? (here the promise to choose a line taking >account of all 3-2 breaks). The trouble with this sort of case is that you cannot allow Kaplan to do something but say others are forbidden to. So you hold AQT9 opposite K876, you cash the ace, make your comment, and when no-one says anything, run the ten. Looks a good line to me: 100% against oppos who would say that the trumps were 3-2 if they were. Fine, you say, but Kaplan would never do that. No doubt he wouldn't, but that is not the point. What is illegal about doing it? Simple: the comment is either an attempt to curtail play or it is an attempt to disconcert the opponents. With many people It might be considered both. I believe that Kaplan's opponents erred by not calling the Director who would have ruled one off on the claim. If you think what Kaplan did is legal then it must also be legal for the unscrupulous players who would take advantage in the way that Kaplan would not. Fortunately, we have no problem, this is a claim, and should be dealt with as such. In my view there are likely to be definite signs of the distribution of the outstanding cards. If Kaplan did not mean to claim then he was in breach of L74B2: he has made a gratuitous comment which might work to his benefit. What happens if he does take the second round finesse? I find the whole thing incredible. I am perfectly happy that Kaplan's intentions were pure, but it should have been treated as a claim, he should have lost the trick, and a procedural penalty should have been given to him for a breach of etiquette from a player who should have known 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 Fri May 28 06:32:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail1.gte.net (mail1.gte.net [207.115.153.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25628 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:31:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion (1Cust39.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [208.252.64.39]) by mail1.gte.net with SMTP for ; id PAA15469 Thu, 27 May 1999 15:31:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <005201bea87f$859378e0$2740fcd0@pavilion> From: "mike dodson" To: Subject: Re: Master Points - Aims , "profits" , methods . Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:12:04 -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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Masterpoints are primarily a marketing tool. They should have value to the SO's members. Fairness certainly is not the ultimate goal but clear unfairness lessens their value to the members and so should not be ignored. The ACBL is an excellent example of short term marketing considerations destroying the long term value of masterpoints. Using excessive rewards to promote particular events and continued inflation have made ACBL masterpoints worthless to better (not best, they never will care) players and actually detrimental to seeding. Value should be maintained between events and over time. Not because I want fairness but because the SO wants players. Mike Dodson mikedod@gte.net David Stevenson wrote: >Dany Haimovici wrote: >>Dear Friends >> >>A group of TDs here wonders about the "Theory of Master points". >> >>It is clear that there is a need to "classify" the players in >>a known way , but this is not enough . >>I don't want to express now MHO - anyway we would like to >>know your opinions about the aims , goals , "profits" and the use of >>the MP . If you can also indicate the webs of your national federations >>where this theory appears (if at all.....) we will be very thankfully . > > The aim of masterpoints is to offer an acceptable scoring method for >people that they will enjoy and will encourage them to play in >competitions. > > There will always be a minority of people who want masterpoints to be >"fair". Ignore them: they are a very dangerous minority and their >opinions run counter to the good of the game. > >-- >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 May 28 06:39:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25686 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:39:31 +1000 (EST) 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 10n6vw-000OsU-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 20:39:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 21:01:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? References: <01BEA846.EF64F2A0@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> In-Reply-To: <01BEA846.EF64F2A0@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Tim West-Meads:>Four decent >> players sit down at a table and (nv vs v) the bidding goes p-p-1s- none >of >> the players should be surprised if the 1S bid lacks values/length for a >1S >> bid and all, IMO, are entitled to bid cautiously in an attempt to find >> out. >Grattan:++ I recall one English partnership consulting the EBU L&E, some >years ago, about their ultra light openers 3rd-in-hand. They were >told that with four card support (? for a major suit opened) they >must raise directly to the limit opposite a normal strength opening >bid. Any waiting bid would be regarded as a control on the psyche. >Much earlier again than that, I recall Harold Franklin expounding >to the committee on the same theme. ~ Grattan ~ ++ > >By a normal strength opening do you mean such as would typically be played >in third seat, or normal strength for 1st & 2nd? The latter seems to be >correct ethics, the latter is rather absurd since general bridge knowledge >should cause one to suspect that a third seat open, especially at green or >white may well be somewhat light. That partner opens the odd 7 or 8 count >on occasion should not force you to bid 3M with 9 hcp or forbid the use of >Drury if the bid normally has an 11-15 range. >Or would Drury become a psychic control in this situation, thereby barring >the super-light psych of 1M? You may not have an agreement to open a bid of one-of-a-suit with less than Rule of 19 in England/Wales [Rule of 18 at level 4]. To work out the Rule you add your HCP to the lengths of your two longest suits. This prohibition applies just as much third in hand as elsewhere. For the purists: to make the regulation legal, you may have such an agreement but then you may not use any conventions thereafter. To forestall the next question, which I have had to answer several times, any convention means [strangely enough] any convention. Drury was effectively banned for many years in England/Wales because it was believed it would be used as a psychic control. It is now permitted, not because it is approved of, but because it is very difficult to allow Power Acol [which includes a 2C response as an artificial game try] and exclude Drury. The moaners and wailers are already out there with their portents of doom and their gnashing of teeth. -- 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 May 28 06:46:11 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:46:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com (smtp5.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25733 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:46:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh9g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.48]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA24127 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:45:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990527164351.0072db60@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:43:51 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: OPENING Pass In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990521165916.0071e660@pop.mindspring.com> <010f01bea30c$2b79f320$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990521165916.0071e660@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:02 PM 5/26/99 +0100, DWS wrote: >Michael S. Dennis wrote: >>At 09:47 AM 5/21/99 +0100, Jeremy wrote: > >>>Incidentally, I trust we would all be as ready to make a L16 >>>adjustment if a player *failed* to bid a speculative 3NT with a >>>balanced 18-count when his partner was barred from bidding >>>because of an opening pass out of turn. > >>Not I. A failure to make such a call would show poor bridge judgement, IMO, >>but nothing more. Does the fact that partner holds less than opening values >>"demonstrably suggest" bidding less than game in this situation? Not at >>all. The average hand holding less than an opening bid is still plenty good >>enough for a play for game opposite a balanced 18-count, in my experience. > > Can you just run this argument past me again? I cannot quite get hold >of it. > > You hold an 18-count. You go to the toilet, and return to find that >partner has done something - you do not know what - that has barred him. >Your call. 3NT? Of course, wouldn't we all! > > Now you also receive a further piece of information: partner does not >have an opening bid. 3NT is still an option, of course, but the chance >that your side has game values is reduced. So, if you consider that 3NT >and 1NT are both LAs, 1NT is suggested over 3NT by that last piece of >information, that partner has not got an opening bid. > > Now suppose that last piece of info is UI: you may not choose 1NT >rather than 3NT because it is based on the UI. So if the player bids >1NT, making eight tricks, we adjust to 3NT-1. > > What is wrong with that? Opposite my 18-count, the fact that partner has less than opening values makes bidding slam less attractive, and does "demonstrably suggest" 3nt over 6nt, if that could be considered an LA, which it is not. But the information that partner has less than opening values has no appreciable impact upon the likely success of 3nt, simply because of the comparatively low probability of partner having such a hand a priori. I haven't run the numbers, but I would guess that the information effectively reduces partners expected HCP from 7.33 to about 7.0 or 7.1 HCP. Certainly this reduces the odds on the success of 3nt by some measurable amount, but enough to "demonstrably suggest" some lesser action? I think not. I'm not sure whether this is a disagreement about quantity or just about direction. Would it make a difference in your conclusion if we were considering a 21-count rather than an 18-count, or would virtually any reduction in the odds of success suffice to meet the "demonstrably suggested by" criterion? Suppose that your partner accidentally drops a J after being barred. Obviously the fact that partner holds that card is UI, but could the simple fact that "partner holds at least one HCP" ever demonstrably suggest one action over another (without respect to the value of the particular jack in relation to your own holding in that suit)? It does seem to me that some pieces of UI fail to meet the "demonstrably suggested" test when the theoretical advantage they provide is so minuscule. > Thank you for your vote of confidence in our motives. Funnily enough, >when a player has UI made available to him by partner [which a POOT is] >then it does not need any sense of outrage to check the UI implications. > I did not mean to impugn anyone's motives, although I apologize if you found my observation to be offensive. Many of those (but certainly not all) who have made the UI case have expressed strong indignation about North's psyche above and beyond the UI issues. Taken together with the flimsy character of the UI argument, and the difficulty of finding any other suitable legal tool with which to punish North, it seems to me that some of those folks have seized upon the UI issue with more enthusiasm and less critical analysis than they might otherwise bring to bear. I did not particularly have you or any of your comments in mind in making that observation. Note: To anyone who is confused about which UI case we are considering in this thread, there are two. In both cases, the information to POOTer's partner is that POOTer holds less than opening values. In the original case, the question was whether this UI "demonstrably suggests" psyching, and in the hypothetical which prompted this exchange between DWS and myself, the question is whether the same UI would "demonstrably suggest" bidding less than 3nt holding a balanced 18-count. As I trust is clear, I have argued "no" in both instances. DWS has disputed my analysis in the latter case, and I am not sure that he has taken a position in the former. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 06:48:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:48:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp5.mindspring.com (smtp5.mindspring.com [207.69.200.82]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25750 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:48:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh9g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.48]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA32401 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:47:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990527164550.00741528@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:45:50 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <73STqKE3TQT3EwY7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> <000f01bea78b$eed9daa0$5f8d93c3@pacific> <032d01bea7a1$847e5e40$544e4b0c@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:40 AM 5/27/99 +0100, DWS wrote: > > Perhaps we are beginning to see the problem here. A tactical call in >NAmerica is a perfectly reasonable call, which the other side would not >make because their judgement is different, so they complain about it. >Would someone like to shoot this definition down? > No, I think you've summed it up perfectly. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 06:53:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:53:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25779 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:53:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip34.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.34]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990527205327.LOZN18449.fep1@ip34.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:53:27 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Where is the claim? Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 20:53:30 GMT Message-ID: <375369b5.1735165@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990527081524.006d9d38@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990527081524.006d9d38@pop.cais.com> 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 Thu, 27 May 1999 08:15:24 -0400 skrev Eric Landau: >I don't see the problem. Declarer's statement is a claim No, when you put it that way, there is none. But in the original post the cards were picked up and played, if I remember correctly. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 06:53:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:53:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25786 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:53:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip34.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.34]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990527205335.LPAH18449.fep1@ip34.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:53:35 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 20:53:36 GMT Message-ID: <37546a76.1928422@post.tele.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 Wed, 26 May 1999 17:49:36 +0100 skrev David Stevenson: >At the end of the hand South called the TD and claimed [in Russian] that >he would have doubled 2C if it had been alerted. Couldn't he just have doubled the 2C anyway? Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 06:59:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA25816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:59:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA25811 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:59:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.gnnettest.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (1873 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:59:33 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:58:58 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027545@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws Subject: Psyches Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:58:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let me bring a concrete example to the table. Tuesday Night MP game down at MIT. Partner opened 3D white versus red. In out partnership this shows (specifically) 7 diamonds with precisely 2 of the top three honors No side suit Ace or King. No 4 card major RHO passed. Holding xxx x JTx KQxxxx I bid 3N By partnership agreement, this is to play 3N. In theory I have side suit stoppers and the missing diamond honor. The board floated. I went down 7 tricks for a cold top. What is my partnerships's ethical obligations at this point in time. To what extent am I allowed to pull the same "stunt" If, next week, exactly the same hands get dealt, can I make the same bid? What if partner were to open 3C (showing the same hand type only with primary clubs) and I have a bust with clubs? Is it now permissible for me to bid 3N to play? I'll readily admit that I psyche a fair amount. Partner and I play a highly aggressive and highly disciplined bidding system. I believe that a highly disciplined opening system lends itself to psyches. The problem is that most psyches are logically related to one another. My pysche following opening "A" may naturally suggest a similar type of pysche in a completely different auction. I see no way to logically draw a line. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 07:26:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 07:26:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from relay1.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25922 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 07:26:18 +1000 (EST) From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h110.37.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id BAA00485; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:25:52 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <374E45FC.4D97@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 00:30:05 -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: Appeal from Moscow References: <008201bea848$1faa03a0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) So - the hand, the bidding and another information that may be sufficient: Board 104: W/NONE; 10 tables, contest like "Sunday-Times-invitational" - that means IMP. Among these pairs there were 12 - from Moscow, 5 - from other regions, 1 - from Ukrain and 3 - "mixed" pairs: in two - Moscovitian played with player from Saint-Petersburg, third pair - Bylarussian played with Litovian. J84 4 E S W N > >>> 97653 > >>> 653 AQ53 AKQ107 P P > >>> K1075 AJ86 1S P 2C P > >>> AQ8 4 2H P 3H P > >>> J97 92 1084 4H AP > >>> Q932 > >>> KJ102 > >>> K62 At other 9 tables there were 8 times game: 6 times 4 hearts, 2 times 4 Spades, and 1 time - part score was played (11 tricks, 200). In game bidding there was used Drury - 3 times, alert was used only once - and was doubled (club lead. down one). One time Drury was not alerted but North said that he knew the meaning and was not going to double (alerted or not) because of weakness of his hand. Another N (with non-alerted double) said that he would not double the bid after alert - the same reason. Results of eight games were: 3 times - made, 3 times - down one, 2 times - down two. Club were lead only once (after Drury was doubled). Usual lead was J Diamonds, and usually Declarer won with A and lost Q Hearts. Appealed pair (one of "mixed" pairs: North was Moscovitian, South - from Saint-Petersburg) explained that South could not lead J Diamonds because it meant (under their agreement) either 10 Diamonds and 1 card higher rank (K or Q) or J second. So - he did not want to lose trick (might be - to lose contract) after this invitational bidding. I should note that South did not lost trump trick: after Dummy's 10 Heart won opening lead Declarer led K Hearts - and then was obliged to save the contract with Diamond finess. At AC (after David told the story) North explained: - he knew that lots of moscow pairs used Drury but even in moscow club it should be alerted - he did not know this very opponents nor he knew their style of bidding - his pd was out-moscow player and he did not want to ask for partner's profit - he did not want to ask because in case natural (it was not alerted after all) so he would pass - and it would transfer huge UI. Before discussion I was going to award EW with weighted (12C3) score (60-80% of 4 Hearts, down 1, amd 20-40$ - part score, 140 - because they might stop after Drury doubled). But during the discussion it became clear that other AC member were sure that Nourth knew meaning of 2 Clubs and in doubts he should ask even if it might transfer UI. Voting: Was there an infraction - 4 "yes". Was there a damage - 3 "no", 1 "yes". No my arguments (the Laws, North's clearly stated position etc.) could change their position. So - result was return. The only thing I could forced was request to David (4 "yes") to award EW with PP according with his own point of view - and David did. Best wishes Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 07:39:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 07:39:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (root@ect.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA25947 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 07:39:17 +1000 (EST) 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 RAA12532 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 17:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 17:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905272139.RAA01988@bailey.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <37546a76.1928422@post.tele.dk> (blh@nospam.dk) Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bertel Lund Hansen writes: > Wed, 26 May 1999 17:49:36 +0100 skrev David Stevenson: >> At the end of the hand South called the TD and claimed [in Russian] that >> he would have doubled 2C if it had been alerted. > Couldn't he just have doubled the 2C anyway? The double of a natural 2C wouldn't show clubs. -- 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 May 28 08:06:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 08:06:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from purplenet.co.uk ([195.89.178.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA25989 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 08:06:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([195.89.178.82]) by purplenet.co.uk with SMTP (IPAD 2.5) id 3026100 ; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:07:50 -0000 Message-ID: <000401bea88c$df1f2280$52b259c3@default> From: "magda.thain" To: "Richard F Beye" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 22:49:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Richard F Beye To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: 26 May 1999 20:50 Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? The people in our village club would just laugh if anyone called this ordinary bridge rescue a psyche. I do not believe anyone could be so confused and silly. mt----- Original Message ----- >From: Grattan Endicott >> From: Richard F Beye >> >From: Eric Landa >> > >> >I respectfully disagree. What I would aver, however, is that there is a >> >failure to understand the difference between a psychic call and a >tactical >> >call within a large segment of the North American contingient. >> > >> +++++ Maybe it would help if you supplied some examples of each? > > >e.g. #2 P - P - 1N - P > 2C - P - 2D - P > P - P > > The 2C bidder holds: > Txx Txxx Txxxx x > Has he made a psychic call or has he made a tactical call? He knows >with a certainty that the opponents own this hand. He knows that his hand >is useless to partner in 1NT. He has used his bridge judgement to better >his sides chances on this particular hand. Some in ACBLand would scream >foul. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 08:11:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 08:11:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26008 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 08:11:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.147.237]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990527221205.BUKA7869945.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 10:12:05 +1200 Message-ID: <374DAFEE.C72245B2@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:49:50 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? References: <01BEA851.C1DC2500@har-pa2-21.ix.NETCOM.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >(...snip...) > The question must be does the worldwide bridge community want to poison the > game to satisfy the needs and desires of those who play it poorly, don't > know its laws, and don't want to change what they have always done? In that > case perhaps we ought to dust off our Blue Books and 1938 Acol volumes and > make everything else illegal. (Although our bunch would probably be happier > with the 1946 edition of Goren). > > Bridge is sick in North America. Youth is staying away in droves. The more > we deter innovation, tactical bidding and play, and innovation in the name > of status quo, the more we nail shut the coffin. Barring psychs will kill > bridge more surely than allowing the old black magic to resurface. We need > a happy medium...but one that permits the greatest possible freedom short > of license. > > Craig > And how can we lose. If innovation leads to new methods or styles (or even reinvention's of old ones) that are successful we will adopt those methods and styles and be better bridge players for it and perhaps even enjoy our game more AND that same innovation leads to inferior methods or styles we will get rich on +1100 etc. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 09:15:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:15:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26138 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:15:24 +1000 (EST) 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 10n9Mr-0000FI-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 May 1999 23:15:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:52:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > Not a new situation, but perhaps interesting because a bit different >from others. See what you think. A correspondent has asked me the >following: > > Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, >East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a losing >spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two tricks to >West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the winning spade, >and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his concession back, >because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at trick twelve for a >two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only give him a one-trick >penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we restore equity, or do we >resolve a doubtful point in favour of declarer? > It seems we revisit the thorny problem. Could a player who revokes have known at the time of the revoke that the action could work to his benefit, or that it would be likely to damage the non-offending side. My opinion is Yes. 2 tricks, I resolve the doubtful point pro declarer, and can still use L72 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 Fri May 28 09:36:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:36:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26172 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:35:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA17864; Thu, 27 May 1999 16:35:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199905272335.QAA17864@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 May 1999 16:52:30 PDT." Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 16:35:15 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > In article <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes > > > > Not a new situation, but perhaps interesting because a bit different > >from others. See what you think. A correspondent has asked me the > >following: > > > > Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, > >East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a losing > >spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two tricks to > >West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the winning spade, > >and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his concession back, > >because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at trick twelve for a > >two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only give him a one-trick > >penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we restore equity, or do we > >resolve a doubtful point in favour of declarer? > > > It seems we revisit the thorny problem. Could a player who revokes have > known at the time of the revoke that the action could work to his > benefit, or that it would be likely to damage the non-offending side. > > My opinion is Yes. 2 tricks, I resolve the doubtful point pro > declarer, and can still use L72 IMO. Cheers john But how did the revoke damage the non-offending side? IMHO, it didn't. Without the revoke, declarer loses the last two tricks; with the revoke, declarer gets one of those two tricks back. So the revoke helped the non-offenders, it didn't damage them. So how can L72 be applied? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 10:35:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 10:35:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.204]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26323 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 10:35:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem97.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.225] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10nAc9-0001tJ-00; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:35:10 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:33:37 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic." - Dostoevsky rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche > Date: 26 May 1999 22:36 > > Grattan wrote: > > >++++ In England a psyche may be drawn to the attention of the > >Director*, --------------------- \x/ --------------------- > > A Red psyche is one that *appears* to have catered for partner having > psyched. Directors do not rule that an action *has* catered for it. > ++++ Now this is not an argument I would care to defend in an English Court of Law. The other side would be reading this to me: "The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have "fielded" the psyche. The TD will find that you have such an unauthorised understanding if, for example, you take any abnormal action, before the psyche has been exposed, to protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your actions objectively; that is to say your intent will not be taken into account." 'Appear' does not appear, and the finding is that "you have" an unauthorised understanding. The quote is from the Orange Book, section 6.2.1., editor David Stevenson. It is followed by Section 6.2.2: "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that the partnership has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted (for example, 60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche." Perhaps, a bit like some of Kaplan's texts, the intention was not quite what the regulation says? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 10:39:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA26343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 10:39:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26338 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 10:39:15 +1000 (EST) 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 RAA18677 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 17:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <031a01bea8a2$7aa5b100$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027545@MAIL> Subject: Re: Psyches Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 17:33:36 -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 Richard Willey wrote: > > Let me bring a concrete example to the table. > > Tuesday Night MP game down at MIT. > Partner opened 3D white versus red. > > In out partnership this shows (specifically) > > 7 diamonds with precisely 2 of the top three honors > No side suit Ace or King. > No 4 card major > > RHO passed. Holding > > xxx > x > JTx > KQxxxx > > I bid 3N > By partnership agreement, this is to play 3N. > In theory I have side suit stoppers and the missing diamond honor. > > The board floated. > I went down 7 tricks for a cold top. > > What is my partnerships's ethical obligations at this point in time. He has none. > To what extent am I allowed to pull the same "stunt Any time you wish. Every night, if it comes up. In fact, every round, if it comes up. Just like falsecards. > > If, next week, exactly the same hands get dealt, can I make the same > bid? Yes. > What if partner were to open 3C (showing the same hand type only with > primary clubs) and I have a bust with clubs? > Is it now permissible for me to bid 3N to play? Yes. > > I'll readily admit that I psyche a fair amount. > Partner and I play a highly aggressive and highly disciplined bidding > system. > I believe that a highly disciplined opening system lends itself to > psyches. > > The problem is that most psyches are logically related to one another. > My pysche following opening "A" may naturally suggest a similar type > of pysche in a completely different auction. > I see no way to logically draw a line. > No need to. You can psych all you want in these situations, since the psych is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience. (L73E). The opening bidder may suspect a psych, but if he has no protection mechanism for it, there is no problem. Just like bluff Blackwood, bluff 3NT bids are ordinary bridge, nothing special. However, if you are not a passed hand and the opponents compete, partner must take any logical action (unlikely that there will be one) that his hand calls for. For example with strength in the opposing suit (e.g., Q10x) he must double, and with an eighth diamond he must bid 4NT, if he wants to stay out of trouble with the authorities. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 12:49:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26597 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:49:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-231-141.s395.tnt7.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.231.141]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10523 for ; Thu, 27 May 1999 22:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008001bea8b4$ad7bbd60$8de7a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199905272335.QAA17864@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 22:49:08 -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: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 27, 1999 7:35 PM Subject: Re: Concession after revoke [snip] > > But how did the revoke damage the non-offending side? IMHO, it > didn't. Without the revoke, declarer loses the last two tricks; with > the revoke, declarer gets one of those two tricks back. So the revoke > helped the non-offenders, it didn't damage them. So how can L72 be > applied? > > -- Adam > The damage came in the distortion of the hand it produced in declarer's mind. S knows from the play that W has the top club. He also knows from the play that W has the top spade. So, a concession to W is completely normal. Whoops! E revoked, and S actually had a choice of plays, one of which would have yielded an extra trick. This was of course not knowable to S until after the concession. It becomes more convoluted, as the play for the extra trick is only available as a result of the very infraction that concealed it. I'm not sure that L72 applies, but the question that arises in my mind would be: Does the extra trick that is now available if declarer plays the correct card at trick 12 become part of declarer's equity in the hand? If so, the penalty is 2 tricks. Or is equity restricted to only to those tricks that Declarer would take in the complete absence of an infraction? In this case, it's a one trick penalty. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 15:39:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 15:39:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from primus.ac.net (primus.ac.net [205.138.54.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA26920 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 15:39:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-3-20.ac.net [205.138.47.109]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id BAA15681 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 01:39:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199905280539.BAA15681@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:45:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-Reply-To: <021d01bea80d$9cb1ece0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <199905262330.TAA16692@primus.ac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >But in addition, cue bids that have "a very unusual or unexpected >meaning" (page 7 of 16, item 4B, Alert Procedure) must be Alerted. T&B >is unexpected in these parts (Southern California), and in my experience >that is true for most of the U. S. When everyone has a legible cc on the >table, then I'll come out against Alerting *any* cue bid overcall of a >natural opening one bid, unusual or not. So now I have to do a survey everywhere I play to find out what is "normal" for that area? *sheesh* no wonder people quit playing.... Of course, when you take the approach you suggest, the next thing that happens is you ALert what you think is an odd bid (ie - T&B) only to get the rude nasty stare along with a snide "that's not Alertable" - so you get a Director, who agrees with the opponent and chews you out... *this has happened to me - more than once* Of course, I'm not even going to go into what the opponents say and do at my table when the bidding goes 1NT - p - 2D and I properly Alert the bid - I can't count how many times I've gotten the same snide "you are supposed to say transfer". Usually my "gee, why would I do that when I don't play transfers?" makes some of them squirm a bit. Oh well - these kind of things usually bug me for about a week - this week it's alerts, just ask my mom - we have discussed them a lot as we make our daily trips to McDonalds to collect all our teenie beanie babies, but that is another mailing list - next week it will be something else... :-) Hope ACBL gets this whole thing right and fixed this time! Linda From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 16:57:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 16:57:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27071 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 16:56:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (rubis.meteo.fr [137.129.5.28]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA19017 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:56:14 GMT Message-ID: <374E3E13.FD8D173A@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:56:19 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? References: <374D5836.D2177C5B@village.uunet.be> <02d901bea86e$7c7eb460$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > A high-ranking ACBL official once told me that I should disclose the > fact that partner is prone to falsecarding against novices with the ace > or queen over the KJ in dummy. As is a common ploy, he will make a > discouraging discard with the ace and an encouraging one with the queen, > especially when it's obvious I am going to be leading the suit. I know > he does this, and I take advantage of this knowledge when I can. Am I > supposed to turn to declarer and say, "Partner is likely to be > falsecarding in this situation"? I don't think so. Our understanding is > that high cards encourage and low cards discourage, and that is all I > must disclose. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Isn't this an encrypted signal: a defenser uses "reverse signalling" with A or Q when he knows partner has the other card, and "normal attitude" otherwise? The use of this form of signals is disallowed by some national regulations, for example BBL as Grattan informed us not so long ago. 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 May 28 17:29:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 17:29:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27180 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 17:29:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA13628 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:29:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374D7CB3.20FCD6AC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 19:11:15 +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: Concession after revoke References: <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Not a new situation, but perhaps interesting because a bit different > from others. See what you think. A correspondent has asked me the > following: > > Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, > East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a losing > spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two tricks to > West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the winning spade, > and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his concession back, > because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at trick twelve for a > two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only give him a one-trick > penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we restore equity, or do we > resolve a doubtful point in favour of declarer? > Again let me first put the matters straight. In claiming, declarer can play either of two cards. He expects to lose the two tricks in both cases. He is correct in expecting this - since he could not have seen the revoke. If he plays the one card, he will get a one-trick penalty back. If he plays the other, he will get a two-trick penalty back. All this is correct, yes ? There is no ruling on claiming, acquiescence, or withdrawn concessions. All we have to do is rule the revoke. There is always a one-trick penalty, and we give that in any case. L64A2 is what we need : ".. also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the (revoker) with a card that he could .." We must agree that "was subsequently won" refers both to tricks actually played out, and to tricks played (fictitiously, for lack of a better word) after a claim. We would not be having this discussion if all claimants lines would lead to such a trick. So the question remains : what if the subsequent trick is not a real one, nor a fictitious one, but a posiible fictitious one. My answer is : The Laws do not give us a definite answer to that question. Another one for Grattan's notebook. BTW, I rule two tricks. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 17:30:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 17:30:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27184 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 17:29:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA13640 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:29:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374D7D7B.A6ADF386@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 19:14:35 +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: 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 Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > > > I started this thread some times ago, saying I was not confortable > letting a top > to a N-S pair and take no other action when they played a board > against wrong > pair (applying only Law 17). The main question is still on table: > Does the stationnary pair have to check against who they are playing? > > You (and David) said No, some others said Yes...... > No definite answer to this is possible. Club rules and practice must apply. You would definitely be within your TD rights for giving the penalty. But that is the case with almost every PP. Really depends on your local custom. Do people check this ? In mu club they certainly don't, and I never give penalties for a pair playing against the wrong opponents. If they can get their own table and boards right, that's more than enough for me ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 17:29:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 17:29:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27179 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 17:29:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-101.uunet.be [194.7.13.101]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA13622 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:29:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374D7A5C.94406F40@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 19:01:16 +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: Appeal from Moscow References: <007a01bea847$f5ec48c0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: > > > > Drury is not a 'standard' on this International Tournament. It is standard > in Moscow's club. Both pares are from Moscow. So the question is - is it > legal to use club_level_knowledge in TD|AC ruling? > IMHO - No. > IMO - Yes. Notwithstanding the fact that Drury has to be alerted, and that this might well cause other penalties, L40 says "opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning". There may be cases where teammates play against one another, and they all know each others methods, where there would not be MI. Of course we don't know if this applies to this particular case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 18:01:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 18:01:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep2.post.tele.dk (fep2.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27305 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 18:00:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip44.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.44]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990528080047.NPUE1342.fep2@ip44.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 10:00:47 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:00:52 GMT Message-ID: <375d4c82.4714619@post.tele.dk> References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027545@MAIL> <031a01bea8a2$7aa5b100$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <031a01bea8a2$7aa5b100$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> 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 Thu, 27 May 1999 17:33:36 -0700 skrev Marvin L. French: >Any time you wish. Every night, if it comes up. In fact, every round, if >it comes up. I once saw (or heard) a set of rules concerning what "often", "seldom" and "never" means in connection with the (Danish) CC, which has boxes for "Psyching". There were limitations in each case. I have forgotten where and what it was. Does anyone know about such rules? If I remember correctly, psyching in every round was not allowed. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 18:31:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA27359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 18:31:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA27354 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 18:31:23 +1000 (EST) 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 10nI2q-000Ewq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 May 1999 08:31:13 +0000 Message-ID: <+qGCtPGm3dT3EwJD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 01:05:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@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: >David Stevenson writes >> Not a new situation, but perhaps interesting because a bit different >>from others. See what you think. A correspondent has asked me the >>following: >> >> Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, >>East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a losing >>spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two tricks to >>West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the winning spade, >>and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his concession back, >>because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at trick twelve for a >>two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only give him a one-trick >>penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we restore equity, or do we >>resolve a doubtful point in favour of declarer? >It seems we revisit the thorny problem. Could a player who revokes have >known at the time of the revoke that the action could work to his >benefit, or that it would be likely to damage the non-offending side. > >My opinion is Yes. 2 tricks, I resolve the doubtful point pro >declarer, and can still use L72 IMO. This cannot be right. Of course, in theory, anything may cause anything else, but the logic is incredibly tenuous. In effect, you are saying that whenever anyone revokes, it could work to their benefit despite the penalties and equity Law, and that they could know this. It is just not true. --------------------- Adam Beneschan wrote: >So I don't think Law 64C applies in this case. Declarer was going to >lose two tricks no matter what. After the revoke penalty, declarer >only loses one of the tricks. Since the revoke penalty has left >declarer (the NO) with *more* tricks than he was supposed to get, >there's no question of "insufficient compensation", so L64C doesn't >apply. So I'd rule against declarer on this one. Why? How do you know which card he would play first if he played the hand out? --------------------- John Kuchenbrod wrote: >How exactly did South phrase the concession? If he says "I concede >two tricks to West" without further explanation, it is not a bad >claim since West can win two club tricks on a club lead. But why should he? He expected to lose both his remaining cards to West because of the revoke. If there is a contested claim, doubtful points are resolved against claimer, and that should mean he loses both cards to West, but how can this be fair? Anyway, a claim of no tricks is treated as a concession not a claim. --------------------- I think the solution to the problem is that the Laws have overlooked something. We have discussed similar situations before. There is a problem whenever a player claims or concedes, and the opponents have revoked and this is now established. In my view the Laws do not really allow for this. Look at the basic unfairness of some of the above solutions: it comes down to a principle that doubtful points are resolved against claimer. Actually, it is not clear whether the principle even applies here with a concession rather than a claim, but surely when there is nothing wrong with a claim except a revoke doubtful points should be resolved against revoker? In 2007, I ask the Lawmakers to consider this principle, and alter the Laws accordingly. Until then we have to do something. I do not think equity comes into it, since that refers to the original number of tricks with no revoke. Does it matter, I hear you ask? Yes, it does. The reason that declarer mistakenly thought he was losing two tricks to West and said so was because of the revoke: thus while the defence have lost a penalty tricks because of the revoke they apparently have failed to lose another penalty trick *because of the revoke*. I believe they have no right to gain because of it, and thus with some reluctance I am giving the defence another trick as an assigned score under L12A1. I am sure most of you know my extreme reluctance to use this Law: it is only when there is no other Law to provide redress, and I believe this is a case where this is true. So I give declarer the effect of a two-trick revoke, which has the advantage of feeling like natural justice. -- 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 May 28 19:48:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 19:48:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA27453 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 19:48:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from LOCALNAME ([202.27.177.1]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990528095004.IHTU7869945.mta1-rme@LOCALNAME> for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 21:50:04 +1200 Message-ID: <374F7180.6090@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 21:48:00 -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: Swiss Teams Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all No Law question just a organisational one Have ten teams playing in a handicap event over a series of nights. Someone suggestting running a Swiss event. Happy to do so as want to learn. Ran into different versions and would like suggestions on what people felt was best (?fairest). One senario is to rank all and play 1v2 3v4 etc after round one re rank and continue 1v2 etc for hovever many rounds. Another suggestion was to rank and have 1v6 2v7 etc and re rank after each round and continue 1v6 etc. Third suggestion was to do random draw then use either of the other continuations. Is there any best/fairest way? Cheers Bruce. PS Dear Pat Carter Does NZ have any set procedures for Swiss? Bruce. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 20:01:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:01:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27476 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:01:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id GAA19395 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 06:01:31 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) In-Reply-To: <374CFC37.8039B1E7@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 May 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Actions are either allowed or not - there is nothing in-between, even > > though some actions that are not allowed do not result in a penalty. > > And that is where we part meaning. > > I believe that when something carries no penalty, it should > be allowed. > > You cannot say in one law that something carries no penalty > and then use another law to penalize it, simply because you > did the thing knowingly in stead of inadvertently. > L57 carries no such distinction, so there can never be a > penalty. > > What is the use of saying that something is not allowed when > there is no penalty to be given to it ? > I find this to be a very bad argument. Take Law 7B1 "Each player shall count his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; . . ." >From the preface: "In contrast, when these Laws say a player "shall" do something . . . a violation will be penalized more often than not." Oh yeah? And what is the prescribed penalty? -- Richard Lighton |"Why, I can remember the time when people offered us human (lighton@idt.net)| sacrifices--No mistake about it--human sacrifices! Think Wood-Ridge NJ | of that!" USA |"Ah! Those good old days!" --W. S. Gilbert (Thespis) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 20:42:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:42:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27553 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:42:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-135.uunet.be [194.7.14.135]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09649 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:42:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374E4FE9.BC4A0933@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:12:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Psyches References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027545@MAIL> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > Let me bring a concrete example to the table. > > Tuesday Night MP game down at MIT. > Partner opened 3D white versus red. > > In out partnership this shows (specifically) > > 7 diamonds with precisely 2 of the top three honors > No side suit Ace or King. > No 4 card major > > RHO passed. > > Holding > > xxx > x > JTx > KQxxxx > > I bid 3N > By partnership agreement, this is to play 3N. > In theory I have side suit stoppers and the missing diamond honor. > That is what you have to tell opponents. 3N is to play. In theory it should show ... > The board floated. > I went down 7 tricks for a cold top. > > What is my partnerships's ethical obligations at this point in time. > To what extent am I allowed to pull the same "stunt" > Provided your partner always tells them "in theory it should ...". Perhaps in future he should laughingly add, "but last time he did this he hadn't and went seven down !". > If, next week, exactly the same hands get dealt, can I make the same > bid? Why not ? > What if partner were to open 3C (showing the same hand type only with > primary clubs) and I have a bust with clubs? > Is it now permissible for me to bid 3N to play? > > I'll readily admit that I psyche a fair amount. > Partner and I play a highly aggressive and highly disciplined bidding > system. > I believe that a highly disciplined opening system lends itself to > psyches. > > The problem is that most psyches are logically related to one another. > My pysche following opening "A" may naturally suggest a similar type of > pysche in a completely different auction. > I see no way to logically draw a line. > Nor would you need to. As long as your psyches are "gross" distortions, I see no problem. BTW, why didn't the opponent with the diamond honour double ? Thus exposing the psyche to his partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 20:42:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:42:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27552 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:42:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-14-135.uunet.be [194.7.14.135]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA09633 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:42:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374E4DC0.11DCD4E8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:03:12 +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: Enforced passes (theory) was: OPENING PASS ... References: <199905271807.LAA06248@dlsun565.us.oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jim Boyce wrote: > > Hi, > > [North is dealer; South commits an Opening Pass out of turn.] > Jim Boyce wrote: > > > > > > > and Herman DE WAEL responded: > HDW > HDW conclusion : if West has an opening bid, he should accept > HDW the POOT. > HDW > HDW Since this is not an agreement with partner, it is alright > HDW for us to tell even ACBL members. > HDW > > This leads to several questions. Hereafter, North is dealer, South > commits an OPOOT, and West does not accept. > > 1) Is it "general bridge knowledge" that West should accept the POOT > when he has an opening bid? I really don't know; I believe that you > can reach that conclusion reasoning from first principles, but many > people have never had a reason to think about it. I am not sure that > it is obvious without a certain amount of thought. > > Whether or not it is general bridge knowledge that West should accept > with an opening bid, West can believe that he should. And any of > North, South, or East might know of West's belief. > > Is the Information that West probably does not have an opening bid AI > or UI ... > 2) to East? > 3) to North or South? > > 4) And, finally, if East knows of West's belief, does East have a > disclosure responsibility at this point? Are N/S entitled to know > that West probably does not have an opening bid? > > -jim I think there might be different answers in ACBL and ROW. In the ACBL, no agreement about these things is allowed (I believe). So this knowledge must be "general" bridge knowledge, and if opponents don't know it, too bad on them. In the ROW, such a thing, when once occured, becomes partnership understanding. So would have to be told. Since it is correctly following the laws, it is AI to partner. Since it has to be told, it is AI to offenders. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 20:50:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA27588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:50:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA27583 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:50:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id GAA29167 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 06:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 06:48:41 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Swiss Teams In-Reply-To: <374F7180.6090@xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 28 May 1999, B A Small wrote: > Hi all > > No Law question just a organisational one > > Have ten teams playing in a handicap event over a series of nights. > Someone suggestting running a Swiss event. Happy to do so as want to > learn. Ran into different versions and would like suggestions on what > people felt was best (?fairest). > One senario is to rank all and play 1v2 3v4 etc after round one re rank > and continue 1v2 etc for hovever many rounds. > Another suggestion was to rank and have 1v6 2v7 etc and re rank after > each round and continue 1v6 etc. > Third suggestion was to do random draw then use either of the other > continuations. > Is there any best/fairest way? > Assuming you can do a reasonable ranking, the 1v6, 2v7 etc method has the advantage of sort of eliminating a round. This is the method used in US chess tournaments. In chess, it makes for a fairly dull first round for everybody (few games go against expectation) but it is "fair" (and in bridge the variation from the expected result is much larger). If you are not too happy about your rankings, a random draw is next best. After the first round, you should be pairing teams with the closest scores, starting from the top, and two teams should never play each other twice. And play as many rounds as possible. (This last statement will probably invoke argument from the people who think that a Swiss sholud have a similar number of rounds to a knockout for the same number of teams. Until they try to support this assertion, I'm not getting into my Swiss ranking rant. I haven't got time this early in the morning.) -- Richard Lighton |"Why, I can remember the time when people offered us human (lighton@idt.net)| sacrifices--No mistake about it--human sacrifices! Think Wood-Ridge NJ | of that!" USA |"Ah! Those good old days!" --W. S. Gilbert (Thespis) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 21:47:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 21:47:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27687 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 21:47:22 +1000 (EST) 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 10nL6W-000I8x-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 May 1999 11:47:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 09:42:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening pass out of turn, then psyche References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Grattan wrote: >> >++++ In England a psyche may be drawn to the attention of the >> >Director*, >> A Red psyche is one that *appears* to have catered for partner having >> psyched. Directors do not rule that an action *has* catered for it. >++++ Now this is not an argument I would care to defend >in an English Court of Law. The other side would be reading >this to me: >"The actions of you and your partner following a psyche may >provide evidence of an unauthorised - and therefore illegal - >understanding. If so, then your partnership is said to have >"fielded" the psyche. The TD will find that you have such an >unauthorised understanding if, for example, you take any >abnormal action, before the psyche has been exposed, to >protect your side from its effect. The TD will judge your >actions objectively; that is to say your intent will not be >taken into account." >'Appear' does not appear, and the finding is that "you have" >an unauthorised understanding. The quote is from the >Orange Book, section 6.2.1., editor David Stevenson. > >It is followed by Section 6.2.2: >"A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient >for the TD to find that the partnership has an unauthorised >understanding and the score will be adjusted (for example, >60% to the non-offending side and 30% to the offending >side is normal in pairs). This is classified as a Red psyche." > >Perhaps, a bit like some of Kaplan's texts, the intention >was not quite what the regulation says? Time marches on. We learn from our mistakes - well, some of us do. The words that you quote were written by the L&EC with a different set of members and a different Chairman. Whether they *should* have been updated or not is not something I would care to comment on. However, the full effects of the change in approach in the 1987 Laws took a long time to permeate. It has slowly become clear that the way forward is to rule on a basis of "you could have known" rather than on the basis of "you are a cheating bastard". Whatever the regulations, I would prefer to take a ruling under L40A to court where I have ruled that my judgement is that there is such a breach based on the evidence rather than I *know* that a pair has breached the Law deliberately - and that is the approach we have taught our Directors. -- 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 May 28 21:53:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA27710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 21:53:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA27704 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 21:53:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.147.95]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990528115506.ZEMW7623210.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 23:55:06 +1200 Message-ID: <374E8345.55DCBA6E@xtra.co.nz> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 23:51:33 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A proper face down opening lead is made simultaneously with a face up opening lead out of turn. L58A Simultaneous plays to another players legal play are deemed subsequent. L41A Face down opening lead is a legal play. Do we therefore face opening lead and partner's OOT lead is a major penalty card and either played to first trick (if legal) or L50 applies? Or is there more to this? Wayne Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 22:15:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:15:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [12.15.134.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27796 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:15:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.gnnettest.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (1750 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 08:15:36 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.104 1998-Nov-20 #1 built 1998-Dec-3) Received: by MAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Fri, 28 May 1999 08:15:00 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027561@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:14:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote >By a normal strength opening do you mean such as would typically be played >in third seat, or normal strength for 1st & 2nd? The latter seems to be >correct ethics, the latter is rather absurd since general bridge knowledge >should cause one to suspect that a third seat open, especially at green or >white may well be somewhat light. That partner opens the odd 7 or 8 count >on occasion should not force you to bid 3M with 9 hcp or forbid the use of >Drury if the bid normally has an 11-15 range. >Or would Drury become a psychic control in this situation, thereby barring >the super-light psych of 1M? I'm not well versed in the regulations used in Britain. (Many would argue that I'm not well versed in whats allowed here in the US, but that's another story) Are players allowed to vary their system by seat? For example, could they chose to play Roth Stone in first and second seats and Moscito in third and 4th? If so, I can't see how a opening much lighter in 3rd and 4th seat could be considered a psyche. Rather the pair would seem to have agreements about opening requirements that vary by seat. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 22:18:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:18:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.37]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27822 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:18:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.43.171]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990528121801.DULK10494@default> for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:18:01 +0000 Message-ID: <005401bea904$04a15d80$ab2b4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: References: <374F7180.6090@xtra.co.nz> Subject: Re: Swiss Teams Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 07:15:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: B A Small Subject: Swiss Teams > Have ten teams playing in a handicap event over a series of nights. > Someone suggestting running a Swiss event. Happy to do so as want to > learn. Ran into different versions and would like suggestions on what > people felt was best (?fairest)? -- snip -- Why not run a complete round-robin event? Three rounds each night, three nights. Every team gets a shot at each of the other teams in the event. The order in which you play your opponents would not be important, as you will have each team play all others. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 22:30:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:30:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27865 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:30:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-243.uunet.be [194.7.9.243]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20961 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 14:29:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374E7934.6F64C925@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:08:36 +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: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard lighton wrote: > > On Thu, 27 May 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > I believe that when something carries no penalty, it should > > be allowed. > > > > You cannot say in one law that something carries no penalty > > and then use another law to penalize it, simply because you > > did the thing knowingly in stead of inadvertently. > > L57 carries no such distinction, so there can never be a > > penalty. > > > > What is the use of saying that something is not allowed when > > there is no penalty to be given to it ? > > > I find this to be a very bad argument. Take Law 7B1 > > "Each player shall count his cards face down to be sure he has exactly > thirteen; . . ." > > >From the preface: > > "In contrast, when these Laws say a player "shall" do something . . . > a violation will be penalized more often than not." > > Oh yeah? > And what is the prescribed penalty? > That the board can become unplayable, in which case the offender will receive average-minus. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 22:30:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:30:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27866 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:30:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-9-243.uunet.be [194.7.9.243]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20973 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 14:29:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374E7A5B.70DC12@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:13:31 +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: Swiss Teams References: <374F7180.6090@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 > > No Law question just a organisational one > > Have ten teams playing in a handicap event over a series of nights. > Someone suggestting running a Swiss event. Happy to do so as want to > learn. Ran into different versions and would like suggestions on what > people felt was best (?fairest). > One senario is to rank all and play 1v2 3v4 etc after round one re rank > and continue 1v2 etc for hovever many rounds. > Another suggestion was to rank and have 1v6 2v7 etc and re rank after > each round and continue 1v6 etc. > Third suggestion was to do random draw then use either of the other > continuations. > Is there any best/fairest way? > No. I could stop there, but I would like you to consider one other aspect. When applying swiss principles, it is not good to have too many rounds for a particular number of participants, or too few participants for a particular number of rounds. 2^r < n (plus or minus one or two either way) is a formula often used, although without good reason. The results are correct though. One should certainly not play a swiss for 10 teams. There are lots of possibilities to play nine rounds. Three evenings of three matches is what I would do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 22:56:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:56:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from woozle.isode.com (woozle.isode.com [193.133.227.19]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA27953 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 22:56:10 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199905281256.WAA27953@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from MessagingDirect.com (actually brian.isode.com) by woozle.isode.com (local) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 May 1999 13:54:59 +0100 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Ian.Reissmann@MessagingDirect.com Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 May 1999 09:45:26 BST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:56:06 +0100 From: Ian Reissmann Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > John Kuchenbrod wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> I forgot to take note of the actual hand, and have no hand records. > >> Vitold may be able to correct it if I have got it wrong. > >> > >> E/ALL Tx > >> Butler Q8xx W N E S > >> Kxxx > >> AKQxx Kxx xxx P P > >> AJ97 KTxx 1S P 2C P > >> x AQx 2H P 3H P > >> xxx Jxx Txx 4H AP > >> x > >> Txxxx > >> AQxx > > >Fourteen spades and twelve diamonds. That's the first problem :) > > Oh, the pedantry of the lad! Ok, amended. > > >But in all seriousness, what is the actual layout? I don't want > >to speculate as to which card goes where. 4H looks makeable even > >if one of South's spades is a diamond. Or is the problem that one > >of West's spades is a diamond and that he opened 1S with 4423 (or > >is this a problem)? > > 4H is makeable on any lead - but is less likely to be made if three > rounds of clubs are cashed first. My own record with two-way finesses > for a queen is about 20%! > > 4H is unmakeable on 4 rounds on Clubs. Ian Reissmann Ian Reissmann Tel (H) +44-1491-578249, (W) +44-181-332-9091 Ian.Reissmann@messagingdirect.com http://www.messagingdirect.com/ 80 Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, England, RG9 2BN From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 28 23:41:23 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 May 1999 23:41:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA28152 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 23:41:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from p67s03a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.131.104] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10nMsf-0005h9-00; Fri, 28 May 1999 14:41:02 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:33:31 +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: bridge-laws Date: 28 May 1999 02:01 Subject: Re: Psyches >Richard Willey wrote: >> >> Let me bring a concrete example to the table. >> >Any time you wish. Every night, if it comes up. In fact, every round, if >it comes up. Just >like falsecards. >> >> If, next week, exactly the same hands get dealt, can I make the same >> bid? > Marvin produced some answers: >Yes. > >> What if partner were to open 3C (showing the same hand type only with >> primary clubs) and I have a bust with clubs? >> Is it now permissible for me to bid 3N to play? > >Yes. >> >> I'll readily admit that I psyche a fair amount> > +++++ Er, just a minute......... or two....... Are we forgetting the 40B requirement? It works like this: 1. Partner recognizes that I have a habit of psyching in a particular way or in a particular situation. 2. As soon as partner knows I have this habit we are required to disclose it "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation" 3. Disclosure is likely to involve writing it on the convention card, since it has become part of our agreed partnership methods, likely to involve alerts, and so on. (An implicit agreement is as much an agreement as an explicit one.) 4. However, we then find that the regulating authority has regulations about the use of conventions and agreements to open on fewer than 8 HCP. These will probably prohibit such an agreement, or in the case of the WBF will categorize the method as HUM. 5. So the moment we announce our implicit agreement to opponents, or they read it on the CC, "Director!" will be the cry, "They are using an illegal method". And so we are. Lille ruling: We can be reminded that in Lille the WBFLC minuted the following - "The committee affirms that a psychic call or play which is evidently identified by the course of the auction or play, as a matter of general bridge knowledge, is not the subject of an understanding peculiar to that partnership and is a legitimate ploy. Other than this an understanding may be created in the partnership by explicit discussion or by the implicit learning from repeated partnership experience out of which it may reasonably be thought the partner will recall and be influenced by earlier occurrences." [ A true psyche with no implicit understanding can thus be exposed in the subsequent action by circumstances that should be recognizable to any bridge player] Addendum: Re David Stevenson's comment on the pro - client relationship and the desire of the Pro that the client will fail to notice his habitual aberrations from system, the Director will look at the question objectively. The customer is assumed to be a bridge player and to have an awareness of his partner's actions, to be capable of identifying a psyche when he sees one. There is no exclusion clause which says that the customer is by definition incapable of a normal appreciation of the actions of his partner, nor is payment of a Pro's fees an opiate rendering him oblivious of the actions of his partner whilst fully able, as experience tells us, to bear witness to the misdemeanours of opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 00:41:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 00:41:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00757 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 00:41:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id JAA21329; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:40:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.75) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021287; Fri May 28 09:40:44 1999 Received: by har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEA8F6.498C3860@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 28 May 1999 10:38:56 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEA8F6.498C3860@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" , "'Richard Willey'" Subject: RE: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:27:57 -0400 Encoding: 57 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Actually, Richard, I, not Grattan posed the question you posted, though I am honoured you confuse my prose with his. :-) My reason for asking was related to my ignorance of common third seat opening practice other than here in the US. At least in Central PA it is quite common for a third seat opening to be made about a queen lighter than a first of second seat one, with some pairs going as much as an ace lighter (not my cup of tea but many do practice it.) Craig Senior ---------- From: Richard Willey[SMTP:rwilley@azure-tech.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 8:14 AM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Grattan wrote >By a normal strength opening do you mean such as would typically be played >in third seat, or normal strength for 1st & 2nd? The latter seems to be >correct ethics, the latter is rather absurd since general bridge knowledge >should cause one to suspect that a third seat open, especially at green or >white may well be somewhat light. That partner opens the odd 7 or 8 count >on occasion should not force you to bid 3M with 9 hcp or forbid the use of >Drury if the bid normally has an 11-15 range. >Or would Drury become a psychic control in this situation, thereby barring >the super-light psych of 1M? I'm not well versed in the regulations used in Britain. (Many would argue that I'm not well versed in whats allowed here in the US, but that's another story) Are players allowed to vary their system by seat? For example, could they chose to play Roth Stone in first and second seats and Moscito in third and 4th? If so, I can't see how a opening much lighter in 3rd and 4th seat could be considered a psyche. Rather the pair would seem to have agreements about opening requirements that vary by seat. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 00:43:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA00777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 00:43:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand5.global.net.uk (IDENT:exim@sand5.global.net.uk [194.126.80.249]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00772 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 00:42:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from p6ds03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.110] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10nNqH-0006zg-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 May 1999 15:42:38 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Swiss Teams Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 15:47:19 +0100 Message-ID: <01bea918$fce79fe0$6ea393c3@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: B A Small To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, May 28, 1999 11:32 AM Subject: Swiss Teams >Hi all > >No Law question just a organisational one > >Have ten teams playing in a handicap event over a series of nights. >Someone suggestting running a Swiss event. Happy to do so as want to >learn. Ran into different versions and would like suggestions on what >people felt was best (?fairest). >One senario is to rank all and play 1v2 3v4 etc after round one re rank >and continue 1v2 etc for hovever many rounds. >Another suggestion was to rank and have 1v6 2v7 etc and re rank after >each round and continue 1v6 etc. >Third suggestion was to do random draw then use either of the other >continuations. >Is there any best/fairest way? It is recommended that you should not have more matches than one third of the teams. i.e. if you want to have 6 matches, then you should have 18 teams. Teams should not play each other more than one and a half times. One straight match, but may also play each other in a threesome once if an odd number. (The rule in England/Wales. May not apply elsewhere) This makes sence as in practice if you have 10 teams and try to play 5 matches you find that the teams that match have played each other once. You may also find that the Master Point Award is invalidated if the format of the event is incorrect. Cheers, have fun Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 01:09:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:09:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00838 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:09:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-220-79.s333.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.220.79]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA29049 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 11:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009901bea91c$049f9be0$4fdc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <++NCYxDKoIT3Ew4f@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <+qGCtPGm3dT3EwJD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 11:08:58 -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: Thursday, May 27, 1999 8:05 PM Subject: Re: Concession after revoke [snip] >Until then we have to do something. I do not think > equity comes into it, since that refers to the original number of tricks > with no revoke. > I asked about the definition of equity last night, but didn't get a response. In the light of morning, I believe that the second trick available to S at the time of the concession was indeed part of his equity in the hand. I believe that the fact that the possibility of the second trick was also a result of the same infraction is immaterial at that point. If we look only at trick 12: a) Declarer can concede to W for one trick. b) Declarer can concede to E for two tricks. Surely Declarer's equity in the hand at this point is 2 tricks. c) Declarer believes that a) is his only option as a direct result of the infraction. The infraction has thus caused damage. Restoration of equity requires a two trick penalty. L64C. Director Responsible for Equity 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. Is there a place in the Laws that defines equity as the result that would have occurred in the complete absence of the infraction? If so, this analysis is wrong. I stand ready to be educated if my analysis is flawed. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 01:40:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:40:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (int-gu.gu.net [194.93.160.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00919 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:40:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk.int.kiev.ua (pc144.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.144]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA14812 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 18:45:56 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <005701bea91f$dbabc3e0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 18:36:26 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL wrote >> Sergey Kapustin wrote :> > > > > Drury is not a 'standard' on this International Tournament. It is standard > in Moscow's club. Both pares are from Moscow. So the question is - is it > legal to use club_level_knowledge in TD|AC ruling? > IMHO - No. > >>IMO - Yes. >>Notwithstanding the fact that Drury has to be alerted, and >>that this might well cause other penalties, L40 says >>"opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its >>meaning". Yes, agree. >>There may be cases where teammates play against one another, >>and they all know each others methods, where there would not >>be MI. I think play against teammates is not subject of Low 40b. L40 says "an opposing pair:" not "the opposing pair:" I understand it as "special partnership understanding may be known for any opponents". Maybe is it my bad English? But in my first question "is it legal to use club_level_knowledge in TD|AC ruling?" I think about one other aspect. LOW 40B 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. Suppose, an action in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation is "natural" but in accordance with the lub_level_knowledge is "artifical". My question is: TD (when he wants to apply L40C) designates this action as "failure to explain the full meaning" at first in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. If a regulations present then failure to explain is. And only if there are no the regulations of the sponsoring organisation TD analysis club_level_knowledge and "may a opposing pair be reasonably expected to understand meaning of the action". Not otherwise. Is it true? Cheers, Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 01:50:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:50:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00943 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:50:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from p70s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.113] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10nOtZ-0004WE-00; Fri, 28 May 1999 16:50:06 +0100 Message-ID: <003001bea921$6d07df80$718193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Willey" , Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 16:37:29 +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: 28 May 1999 13:52 Subject: RE: What is AI for fielding a psyche? >Grattan wrote +++~~~~~this was not Grattan!~~~~~~~+++ > >>By a normal strength opening do you mean such as would typically be >played >>in third seat, or normal strength for 1st & 2nd? The latter seems to be > >>correct ethics, the latter is rather absurd since general bridge >knowledge >>should cause one to suspect that a third seat open, especially at green >or >>white may well be somewhat light. That partner opens the odd 7 or 8 >count >>on occasion should not force you to bid 3M with 9 hcp or forbid the use >of >>Drury if the bid normally has an 11-15 range. >>Or would Drury become a psychic control in this situation, thereby >barring >>the super-light psych of 1M? +++~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+++ >I'm not well versed in the regulations used in Britain. >(Many would argue that I'm not well versed in whats allowed here in the >US, but that's another story) > >Are players allowed to vary their system by seat? >For example, could they chose to play Roth Stone in first and second >seats and Moscito in third and 4th? > >If so, I can't see how a opening much lighter in 3rd and 4th seat could >be considered a psyche. >Rather the pair would seem to have agreements about opening requirements >that vary by seat. > >Richard > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 01:50:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:50:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [194.126.80.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00942 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:50:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from p70s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.113] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10nOtd-0004WE-00; Fri, 28 May 1999 16:50:10 +0100 Message-ID: <003101bea921$6f736140$718193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "wayne" , "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 16:44:56 +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 Group Date: 28 May 1999 13:16 Subject: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn > >L41A Face down opening lead is a legal play. > ++++ Card is not played until it is faced. Following the irregularity the Director instructs the withdrawal of the face down lead. Deals with the faced lead OOT by the relevant law. This was a European ruling, proposed to the EBL Laws Cttee by Jean Besse and agreed. I believe it has been adopted by the WBF - perhaps Kojak can look up his little book of words as I do not have mine with me just now. Don't know what the ACBL says. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 01:58:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA00991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:58:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (spartacus.a2000.nl [62.108.1.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA00986 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 01:58:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10nP1f-0000DM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 May 1999 17:58:27 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990528175406.00b16300@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 17:54:06 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn In-Reply-To: <374E8345.55DCBA6E@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:51 28-05-99 +1200, you wrote: >A proper face down opening lead is made simultaneously with a face up >opening lead out of turn. > >L58A Simultaneous plays to another players legal play are deemed >subsequent. > L54 gives the answer. In holland TD-s are instructed to view the faced down card. This, because if declarer wont accept the lead OOT, the faced down card should be played (and open card is penalty card) if declares doesnt wish to excercise his rights under the proper laws. regards, anton >L41A Face down opening lead is a legal play. > >Do we therefore face opening lead and partner's OOT lead is a major >penalty card and either played to first trick (if legal) or L50 applies? > >Or is there more to this? > >Wayne > > >Wayne > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 02:19:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:19:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (mailhub.irvine.com [192.160.8.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01190 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:19:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA31055; Fri, 28 May 1999 09:18:53 -0700 Message-Id: <199905281618.JAA31055@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 May 1999 01:05:58 PDT." <+qGCtPGm3dT3EwJD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 09:18:55 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >David Stevenson writes > > >> Not a new situation, but perhaps interesting because a bit different > >>from others. See what you think. A correspondent has asked me the > >>following: > >> > >> Declarer (South) is playing in a no-trump contract; during the play, > >>East shows out in spades. Declarer arrives at trick twelve with a losing > >>spade and a losing club in hand, and concedes the last two tricks to > >>West. However, it transpires that it is East who has the winning spade, > >>and West has two winning clubs. Now declarer wants his concession back, > >>because he wants to be allowed to play a spade at trick twelve for a > >>two-trick revoke penalty, whereas a club will only give him a one-trick > >>penalty. NB 'equity' is one trick. So do we restore equity, or do we > >>resolve a doubtful point in favour of declarer? > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >So I don't think Law 64C applies in this case. Declarer was going to > >lose two tricks no matter what. After the revoke penalty, declarer > >only loses one of the tricks. Since the revoke penalty has left > >declarer (the NO) with *more* tricks than he was supposed to get, > >there's no question of "insufficient compensation", so L64C doesn't > >apply. So I'd rule against declarer on this one. > > Why? How do you know which card he would play first if he played the > hand out? Oops. I guess I got confused there. I think that one trick is the correct ruling if, for instance, declarer faced a club out of his hand and then said "Well, I guess I'm done". But you're right, I was assuming that "conceding the last two tricks to West" meant we had to assume declarer led the card that would give West the last two tricks. I still maintain that neither L64C nor L72 applies in this case; apparently you're in agreement here. I could be persuaded that when someone concedes all the tricks, there's no "line of play" involved, so that if declarer concedes the last two tricks "to West", the "to West" part carries no weight when deciding how to adjudicate the claim. In that case, I have no problem awarding the extra trick to the non-revoker. I could also be persuaded that there's no "line of play" involved when declarer's remaining cards are the ace of trumps and a bunch of losers, so that declarer claims one more trick and concedes the rest. Other than trivial cases like that, though, it's hard to imagine a situation in which this is an issue---there's an issue only if the last clause of L64A2 applies ("also, if an additional trick was subsequently won by the offending player with a card that he could legally have played to the revoke trick . . ."); and it's hard to imagine a case where this rule applies in which the revoke didn't cause such serious damage to the play to warrant applying L64C. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 02:29:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:29:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01215 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:29:40 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14409) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 8FQBa14682; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:28:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:28:54 EDT Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn To: a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/28/99 12:00:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: > L54 gives the answer. > In holland TD-s are instructed to view the faced down card. This, because > if declarer wont accept the lead OOT, the faced down card should be played > (and open card is penalty card) if declares doesnt wish to excercise his > rights under the proper laws. > regards, I'm lost! Why are we looking at the faced down card? You are right, Law 54 applies, but in appling this Law I'm at a loss to understand why I need to see the faced down proper opening lead. If I don't accept the opening lead out of turn as declarer I have the options of letting the correct opening leader lead anything, insisting on the suit, or prohibiting the suit. I pick one of these, and we go from there. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 02:36:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:36:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01236 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:36:36 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14409) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fVKa002602; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:34:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3808a31b.24801f8a@aol.com> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:34:18 EDT Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/28/99 11:53:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gester@globalnet.co.uk writes: > ++++ Card is not played until it is faced. > > Following the irregularity the Director instructs > the withdrawal of the face down lead. Deals with the > faced lead OOT by the relevant law. This was a > European ruling, proposed to the EBL Laws Cttee > by Jean Besse and agreed. I believe it has been > adopted by the WBF - perhaps Kojak can look up > his little book of words as I do not have mine with > me just now. Don't know what the ACBL says. Kojak here. AMEN. I don't understand the problem. All I do is follow the Law starting with 54, and go from there. I would expect ACBL, WBF, BFAAME, Edgar's "Aunt Elsie", etc., and any TD to do the same. Isn't that why we have the BOOK? From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 02:51:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA01271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:51:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA01266 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:51:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id LAA29716 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 May 1999 11:51:56 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199905281651.LAA29716@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 11:51:56 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > [snip] > >Until then we have to do something. I do not think > > equity comes into it, since that refers to the original number of tricks > > with no revoke. > > I think so, too. Obviously, I am in a small minority here. > I asked about the definition of equity last night, but didn't get a > response. In the light of morning, I believe that the second trick > available to S at the time of the concession was indeed part of his equity > in the hand. I believe that the fact that the possibility of the second > trick was also a result of the same infraction is immaterial at that point. > If we look only at trick 12: > > a) Declarer can concede to W for one trick. > b) Declarer can concede to E for two tricks. > > Surely Declarer's equity in the hand at this point is 2 tricks. I strongly disagree. a) Since there has been no indication that the revoke has had any effect on the play of the hand at all, then I would say declarer's equity at this point is _zero_ tricks. The revoke penalty will be a free bonus in excess of what equity requires. [To use someone else's example, if a revoke blocks a suit and prevents declarer from winning 5 tricks in dummy, we may use L64C to give him his 5 tricks back. Are you saying we should give him his 5 tricks back _plus_ a two trick revoke penalty as equity?] b) Even if we make the revoke penalty part of equity, when declarer makes a concession in a situation where he might have won an extra trick by playing a different way, we do not award him the extra trick unless _all_ normal lines of play give it to him. This is clearly not the case here. Declarer's equity is _at most_ one trick. c) Suppose declarer had simply played the hand out, losing his tricks to West. Now there can be absolutely no question that he gets only the one-trick free award, right? Why should the fact that he conceded to West rather than playing to West make any difference? > c) Declarer believes that a) is his only option as a direct result of the > infraction. The infraction has thus caused damage. The infraction caused no damage. Declarer should be happy to have been awarded one extra trick above equity. > Restoration of equity requires a two trick penalty. > > L64C. Director Responsible for Equity > 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. > > Is there a place in the Laws that defines equity as the result that would > have occurred in the complete absence of the infraction? If so, this I don't know--but that is certainly what it is usually interpreted to mean. In any case, 'equity' is usually used in contrast to 'penalty', and in this case I think a two-trick penalty is a punishment for an infraction and not redress for damage. > analysis is wrong. I stand ready to be educated if my analysis is flawed. I wouldn't call it 'educating you' [I'm hardly qualified to do that!], but I disagree with your analysis. > > Hirsch > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 03:16:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 03:16:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01322 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 03:16:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA12581 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:15:54 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.75) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012558; Fri May 28 12:15:43 1999 Received: by har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEA90B.F37C5A20@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 28 May 1999 13:14:00 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEA90B.F37C5A20@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:34:24 -0400 Encoding: 70 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would not hesitate to give a procedural penalty to a pair that made a board unplayable by not counting their cards at the start of a hand. I might let a rank novice get away with it ONCE. This sort of wanton disregard for the rights of every player in the room comes close to that of fouling a board through inattention in replacing the cards. The near automatic penalty, generally accepted in games I have directed, serves as a wonderful "memory aid" and deterrent. But then I have been known to give PPs for persistent late play following a warning...especially for those who leave the room for a snack or a smoke when they lack the time to do so. Players owe each other a modicum of common courtesy...and that is why they "shall" do certain necessary things to ensure an orderly game and a pleasant one for all. It has not been necessary to assess this type of penalty often...just consistently. --- Craig ---------- From: richard lighton[SMTP:lighton@idt.net] Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 2:01 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) On Thu, 27 May 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Actions are either allowed or not - there is nothing in-between, even > > though some actions that are not allowed do not result in a penalty. > > And that is where we part meaning. > > I believe that when something carries no penalty, it should > be allowed. > > You cannot say in one law that something carries no penalty > and then use another law to penalize it, simply because you > did the thing knowingly in stead of inadvertently. > L57 carries no such distinction, so there can never be a > penalty. > > What is the use of saying that something is not allowed when > there is no penalty to be given to it ? > I find this to be a very bad argument. Take Law 7B1 "Each player shall count his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; . . ." >From the preface: "In contrast, when these Laws say a player "shall" do something . . . a violation will be penalized more often than not." Oh yeah? And what is the prescribed penalty? -- Richard Lighton |"Why, I can remember the time when people offered us human (lighton@idt.net)| sacrifices--No mistake about it--human sacrifices! Think Wood-Ridge NJ | of that!" USA |"Ah! Those good old days!" --W. S. Gilbert (Thespis) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 03:48:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA01446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 03:48:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA01441 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 03:48:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA24865; Fri, 28 May 1999 12:47:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.75) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma024806; Fri May 28 12:47:01 1999 Received: by har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEA910.51EB5260@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com>; Fri, 28 May 1999 13:45:17 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEA910.51EB5260@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws , "'Herman De Wael'" Subject: RE: Swiss Teams Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:22:28 -0400 Encoding: 93 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why not? I have frequently had 10 or even 8 teams for a monthly club swiss and a good time is had by all. The awkward number is 9 since everyone hates the troikas. So many enjoy these games because they can play "real bridge" freed from matchpoint scoring. IMP pairs was never even a possibility before the recent advent of computers when all we had to score with was a pencil, and most are still unfamiliar with it and less comfortable than with Swiss; they also enjoy forming teams. Our approach was always to use a random draw, not that we could not adequately seed, but that seeding could cause hurt feelings. Random does not give the idea that someone feels the members of another team are better than yours. Subsequent matches were usually based on rank converting raw IMPs to a VP scale. We generally played four rounds of six or occasionally seven boards each...depending on whether the players "begged" for the longer game and promised to "play up" (play quickly). This was usually the best attended game of the month whether held on an open night, or an "invitational" night in which one member of each pair had to be below 150 MP. Our experience has generally been that handicap games do not draw well, as the experienced players refuse to play in them, so you effectively get an N/I game. The idea of a round robin is a fine one if you will not face the problem of some players unable to attend on certain nights. You may want to consider ways of appointing a substitute or use 5 or 6 person teams or risk having some matches forfeited. We have run into difficulty in getting people to put up with a 2 session one day playthrough at sectional level and below: it cuts into attendance as those who are less than certain that they can or want to play multiple sessions vote with their feet (opt out). The "best" way is the one that will attract the most players and cause them to enjoy the experience the most. You know your group better than I ...so ask yourself what approach would best serve these goals. Unless there is something great at stake, fairest should take a back seat so long as some reasonably objective means is used that gives anyone who plays well the best chance to win. ----- Craig ---------- From: Herman De Wael[SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 7:13 AM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Swiss Teams B A Small wrote: > > Hi all > > No Law question just a organisational one > > Have ten teams playing in a handicap event over a series of nights. > Someone suggestting running a Swiss event. Happy to do so as want to > learn. Ran into different versions and would like suggestions on what > people felt was best (?fairest). > One senario is to rank all and play 1v2 3v4 etc after round one re rank > and continue 1v2 etc for hovever many rounds. > Another suggestion was to rank and have 1v6 2v7 etc and re rank after > each round and continue 1v6 etc. > Third suggestion was to do random draw then use either of the other > continuations. > Is there any best/fairest way? > No. I could stop there, but I would like you to consider one other aspect. When applying swiss principles, it is not good to have too many rounds for a particular number of participants, or too few participants for a particular number of rounds. 2^r < n (plus or minus one or two either way) is a formula often used, although without good reason. The results are correct though. One should certainly not play a swiss for 10 teams. There are lots of possibilities to play nine rounds. Three evenings of three matches is what I would do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 04:18:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 04:18:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01634 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 04:17:56 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14392) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id uDBCa02054; Fri, 28 May 1999 14:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2e75be82.248036ba@aol.com> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:13:14 EDT Subject: Re: Swiss Teams To: rts48u@ix.netcom.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/28/99 1:50:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rts48u@ix.netcom.com writes: > The "best" way is the one that will attract the most players and cause > them to enjoy the experience the most. You know your group better than I > ...so ask yourself what approach would best serve these goals. Unless there > is something great at stake, fairest should take a back seat so long as > some reasonably objective means is used that gives anyone who plays well > the best chance to win. You know, this kind of thinking could go a long way. It's so clearly logical , to the point, it deserves emphasis. Just wonder why Herman couldn't come up with the same.......?...... without having to be prodded. Kojak here. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 04:27:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA01693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 04:27:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA01686 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 04:26:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (1Cust140.tnt10.dfw5.da.uu.net [153.36.216.140]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA02420 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 11:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990528121408.009d5870@mail.earthlink.net> Message-Id: <4.1.19990528121408.009d5870@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 12:22:17 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <199905281651.LAA29716@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Having just passed the ACBL club directors' exam, I now feel qualified to jump in here : >> If we look only at trick 12: >> >> a) Declarer can concede to W for one trick. >> b) Declarer can concede to E for two tricks. >> >> Surely Declarer's equity in the hand at this point is 2 tricks. > > I strongly disagree. > a) Since there has been no indication that the revoke has had any >effect on the play of the hand at all, then I would say declarer's equity >at this point is _zero_ tricks. Didn't DWS originally state that "equity is one trick"? It appeared to me that without the revoke declarer's last spade would be good and he would get one of the last two tricks (but not both). Thus a one-trick revoke penalty restores equity. However, if declarer were to play his spade before his club (and he didn't say he was playing either, as I understand it), then the revoke penalty is two tricks -- a doubtful point that DWS suggested we might resolve against the revoker. > b) Even if we make the revoke penalty part of equity, when >declarer makes a concession in a situation where he might have won an >extra trick by playing a different way, we do not award him the extra >trick unless _all_ normal lines of play give it to him. This is clearly >not the case here. Declarer's equity is _at most_ one trick. I have no problem with that conclusion (except the premise that the revoke penalty is part of equity). I'm not sure where I stand on David's actual question; I do appreciate the discussion. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net -- NOTE NEW ADDRESS Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading bearcat on OKB From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 05:05:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 05:05:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA01828 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 05:05:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id OAA23864 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 May 1999 14:06:24 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199905281906.OAA23864@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:06:24 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >So I don't think Law 64C applies in this case. Declarer was going to > >lose two tricks no matter what. After the revoke penalty, declarer > >only loses one of the tricks. Since the revoke penalty has left > >declarer (the NO) with *more* tricks than he was supposed to get, > >there's no question of "insufficient compensation", so L64C doesn't > >apply. So I'd rule against declarer on this one. > > Why? How do you know which card he would play first if he played the > hand out? Adam can answer for himself, but: it doesn't matter. Regardless of which way he plays it out, he is going to lose both tricks. So either way the revoke penalty gives him more tricks back than he would have gotten without the revoke. So he cannot get insuifficient compensation under L64C, because _any_ compensation is more than he'd have without the revoke. > --------------------- > > John Kuchenbrod wrote: > > >How exactly did South phrase the concession? If he says "I concede > >two tricks to West" without further explanation, it is not a bad > >claim since West can win two club tricks on a club lead. > > But why should he? He expected to lose both his remaining cards to > West because of the revoke. If there is a contested claim, doubtful > points are resolved against claimer, and that should mean he loses both > cards to West, but how can this be fair? Anyway, a claim of no tricks > is treated as a concession not a claim. So treat it as a concession. And read L71 and find me a place that authorizes declarer to take back his concession. Declarer is entitled to no 'equity' tricks, since he's already getting a bonus trick regardless. So I cannot rule for him under L64C. He cannot take his concession back under L71. So he gets one trick if I'm directing. > --------------------- > > I think the solution to the problem is that the Laws have overlooked > something. We have discussed similar situations before. There is a > problem whenever a player claims or concedes, and the opponents have > revoked and this is now established. There is only a problem for those who think equity demands giving them more tricks than they would have had without the revoke. For those of us who think 'equity' doesn't require that, there is no such problem. We resolve the claim/concession according to the normal claim/concession rules, resolving doubtful points against the claimer/conceder. Then we see whether this gives the NO as many tricks as they would have had had there been no revoke. If so, no equity adjustment, end of story. The penalty is either one or two tricks depending on the actual line of play or the stated line of play when the claim/concession was made. If no line of play was stated, or a line was stated that awards declarer only one bonus trick, so be it. > In my view the Laws do not really allow for this. Look at the basic > unfairness of some of the above solutions: it comes down to a principle > that doubtful points are resolved against claimer. Actually, it is not > clear whether the principle even applies here with a concession rather > than a claim, but surely when there is nothing wrong with a claim except > a revoke doubtful points should be resolved against revoker? I disagree. Revoker is already getting a penalty. I see nothing is the laws, or in Justice, that requires the TD to maximize the penalty. > In 2007, I ask the Lawmakers to consider this principle, and alter the > Laws accordingly. Until then we have to do something. I do not think > equity comes into it, since that refers to the original number of tricks > with no revoke. Then we agree, so what are we worried about? If Declarer is getting one trick in excess of equity, why are we trying to award him two even when we cannot find a law other than L12A1 to do it with? > Does it matter, I hear you ask? Yes, it does. The reason that > declarer mistakenly thought he was losing two tricks to West and said so > was because of the revoke: thus while the defence have lost a penalty > tricks because of the revoke they apparently have failed to lose another > penalty trick *because of the revoke*. I believe they have no right to > gain because of it, and thus with some reluctance I am giving the They did not gain from their revoke--they just lost less than they might have. There is no construction of this story whereby they gain anything. > defence another trick as an assigned score under L12A1. I am sure most > of you know my extreme reluctance to use this Law: it is only when there > is no other Law to provide redress, and I believe this is a case where > this is true. > > So I give declarer the effect of a two-trick revoke, which has the > advantage of feeling like natural justice. Not to me. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 05:10:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 05:10:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA01849 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 05:09:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id OAA24518 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 28 May 1999 14:10:38 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199905281910.OAA24518@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:10:38 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> If we look only at trick 12: > >> > >> a) Declarer can concede to W for one trick. > >> b) Declarer can concede to E for two tricks. > >> > >> Surely Declarer's equity in the hand at this point is 2 tricks. > > > > I strongly disagree. > > a) Since there has been no indication that the revoke has had any > >effect on the play of the hand at all, then I would say declarer's equity > >at this point is _zero_ tricks. > > Didn't DWS originally state that "equity is one trick"? It appeared to me > that without the revoke declarer's last spade would be good and he would > get one of the last two tricks (but not both). Thus a one-trick revoke > penalty restores equity. I may have misunderstood the question, then--if so I stand corrected, but it doesn't affect my conclusion. If the revoke might have caused declarer's winning spade to be a loser, then equity is one trick. It still isn't _two_. > > b) Even if we make the revoke penalty part of equity, when > >declarer makes a concession in a situation where he might have won an > >extra trick by playing a different way, we do not award him the extra > >trick unless _all_ normal lines of play give it to him. This is clearly > >not the case here. Declarer's equity is _at most_ one trick. > > I have no problem with that conclusion (except the premise that the revoke > penalty is part of equity). I'm not sure where I stand on David's actual > question; I do appreciate the discussion. Thanks for your comments. > Best regards, > Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net -- NOTE NEW ADDRESS -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 05:36:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA01923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 05:36:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA01918 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 05:36:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA09037 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 15:36:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990528153441.0084e510@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 15:34:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? In-Reply-To: <374D5836.D2177C5B@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:35 PM 5/27/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >By definition a (more or less regular) partner is less >surprised at the particular type of psyche that someone >effects as the opponents. > >When this becomes too clear to this partner, he is obliged >to inform the opponents as it is "knowledge from partnership >experience". How does one know when something is "too clear"? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 06:42:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 06:42:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f308.hotmail.com [207.82.251.221]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA02170 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 06:42:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 16907 invoked by uid 0); 28 May 1999 20:41:55 -0000 Message-ID: <19990528204155.16906.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 28 May 1999 13:41:54 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 13:41:54 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >+++++ Er, just a minute......... or two....... > Are we forgetting the 40B requirement? > It works like this: >1. Partner recognizes that I have a habit of psyching > in a particular way or in a particular situation. Once again I ask, because I am confused - is "in a particular way or in a particular situation" the limiting factor? How far does this argument hold if Step 1 is simply "Partner recognizes that I have a habit of psyching"? Or similarly, what if the "particular situation" is "at the bridge table"? >2. As soon as partner knows I have this habit we are > required to disclose it "in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation" As far as I can tell, "in accordance..." in the ACBL is "don't ask, don't tell". I would like to know how I am wrong, or given that I am not, how I can "disclose...in accordance". >3. Disclosure is likely to involve writing it on the > convention card, since it has become part of our > agreed partnership methods, likely to involve > alerts, and so on. (An implicit agreement is as > much an agreement as an explicit one.) The ACBL has a regulation (available on it's web page at http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm ) that requires that "Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card." Now if Player A, a frequent psycher, who "habitually" (for the sake of argument) opens 1NT with a "weak 2" in clubs (8-10 HCP to make conventions after it legal after disclosure), plays with Player B, who _never_ psychs, how is this to be disclosed? As soon as it becomes an partnership agreement, the partnership becomes illegal, not because the convention is illegal, but because both players aren't playing the same card. The same argument applies to the Pro-Client situation being discussed, and to anyone who emulates Helen Sobel, who is recorded as playing "My 1NT range is 15-19, yours is 16-18" (which I have heard a lot of Pro-Client pairs do something like, disclosed (even to the client) or not). As a side note, this can cause a problem even with less gross distortions - what if one player will habitually upgrade 21-counts to 22 and open strong 2C, whereas the other refuses to do so/doesn't have the evaluation skills to/has a different theory of evaluation, so upgrades different types of hands/and so on? I don't really want to sit against a pair who play Precision if April opens and K-S if Baker opens (i.e. I agree with the spirit of the regulation), I know I'm splitting hairs, but the ACBL has also been known to do some rabbit-carving... >5. So the moment we announce our implicit > agreement to opponents, or they read it on the CC, > "Director!" will be the cry, "They are using an illegal > method". And so we are. > >Lille ruling: We can be reminded that in Lille the >WBFLC minuted the following - > "The committee affirms that a psychic call or play >which is evidently identified by the course of the >auction or play, as a matter of general bridge >knowledge, is not the subject of an understanding >peculiar to that partnership and is a legitimate ploy. >Other than this an understanding may be created in >the partnership by explicit discussion or by the >implicit learning from repeated partnership experience >out of which it may reasonably be thought the partner >will recall and be influenced by earlier occurrences." > Which, I think, is my query. It is trivial to prove that "it may reasonably be thought the partner will recall" a psych; after all, it happens so rarely, even with frequent psychers; when may it "reasonably be thought" that the informed player "will be influenced by earlier occurrances"? And do the occurrances have to be of this situation or are they just "partner psyches a lot"? Confused - er, sorry. Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 07:55:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 07:55:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA02425 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 07:55:29 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA03634 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 14:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <04d201bea954$c363d7c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws discussion group" References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL><199905262330.TAA16692@primus.ac.net> <199905280539.BAA15681@primus.ac.net> Subject: Re: Cue Bids Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 14:50:02 -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 Linda Trent wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >But in addition, cue bids that have "a very unusual or unexpected > >meaning" (page 7 of 16, item 4B, Alert Procedure) must be Alerted. T&B > >is unexpected in these parts (Southern California), and in my experience > >that is true for most of the U. S. When everyone has a legible cc on the > >table, then I'll come out against Alerting *any* cue bid overcall of a > >natural opening one bid, unusual or not. > > So now I have to do a survey everywhere I play to find out what is "normal" > for that area? *sheesh* no wonder people quit playing.... > > Of course, when you take the approach you suggest, the next thing that > happens is you ALert what you think is an odd bid (ie - T&B) only to get > the rude nasty stare along with a snide "that's not Alertable" - so you get > a Director, who agrees with the opponent and chews you out... *this has > happened to me - more than once* Me too, many times. How about a PP or Zero Tolerance penalty for anyone who mistakenly corrects an opponent in regard to Alerts or Announcements? If the TD doesn't issue one, perhaps agreeing with the ignorant, give permission to appeal. :)) > > Of course, I'm not even going to go into what the opponents say and do at > my table when the bidding goes 1NT - p - 2D and I properly Alert the bid - > I can't count how many times I've gotten the same snide "you are supposed > to say transfer". Usually my "gee, why would I do that when I don't play > transfers?" makes some of them squirm a bit. Automatic ZT penalty! > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 08:15:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 08:15:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02502 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 08:15:37 +1000 (EST) 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 PAA05601 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 15:15:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <04f701bea957$95649b40$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <374D5836.D2177C5B@village.uunet.be> <02d901bea86e$7c7eb460$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374E3E13.FD8D173A@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 15:08:39 -0700 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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > A high-ranking ACBL official once told me that I should disclose the > fact that partner is prone to falsecarding against novices with the ace > or queen over the KJ in dummy. As is a common ploy, he will make a > discouraging discard with the ace and an encouraging one with the queen, > especially when it's obvious I am going to be leading the suit. I know > he does this, and I take advantage of this knowledge when I can. Am I > supposed to turn to declarer and say, "Partner is likely to be > falsecarding in this situation"? I don't think so. Our understanding is > that high cards encourage and low cards discourage, and that is all I > must disclose. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Isn't this an encrypted signal: a defenser uses "reverse signalling" with A or Q when he knows partner has the other card, and "normal attitude" otherwise? The use of this form of signals is disallowed by some national regulations, for example BBL as Grattan informed us not so long ago. Jeez, I hope not. Commonsense cooperation in deceptive discarding and in following suit is so very common I can't believe it could be outlawed. If we show attitude or count honestly in every situation, declarers have too easy a time. Don't we all high-low with three on occasion, or fail to high-low with four, using standard signalling, and expect partner to cooperate with his play of the suit? Anyway, holding the queen over KJ is justification for an encouraging signal, since you would play low without it. That's not even a falsecard. Discarding a low card from the ace is okay too, because one is not obliged to signal possession of a high card when declarer will be aided by the signal. Against experienced players, you discard encouragingly with either the ace or the queen, let declarer make of it what he will. I would do these things when playing with a complete stranger with whom I haven't discussed them, and expect him to pick up on them if he is competent, so they must be legal. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 08:15:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 08:15:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02503 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 08:15:37 +1000 (EST) 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 PAA05604 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 15:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <04f801bea957$95e34120$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <374F7180.6090@xtra.co.nz> Subject: Re: Swiss Teams Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 15:12:33 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: B A Small To: Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 9:48 PM Subject: Swiss Teams > Hi all > > No Law question just a organisational one > > Have ten teams playing in a handicap event over a series of nights. > Someone suggestting running a Swiss event. Happy to do so as want to > learn. Ran into different versions and would like suggestions on what > people felt was best (?fairest). > One senario is to rank all and play 1v2 3v4 etc after round one re rank > and continue 1v2 etc for hovever many rounds. > Another suggestion was to rank and have 1v6 2v7 etc and re rank after > each round and continue 1v6 etc. > Third suggestion was to do random draw then use either of the other > continuations. > Is there any best/fairest way? > Forget Swiss, make it a round-robin. Whenever the number of teams and time available are such that a round robin is feasible, it's the only way to go. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 09:48:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 09:48:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02656 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 09:48:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 28 May 1999 19:47:03 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199905281651.LAA29716@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 19:44:35 -0400 To: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Grant, >[To use someone else's example, if a >revoke blocks a suit and prevents declarer from winning 5 tricks in dummy, >we may use L64C to give him his 5 tricks back. Are you saying we should >give him his 5 tricks back _plus_ a two trick revoke penalty as equity?] This one jumped out at me. Seems to me we first give him his revoke penalty, whether it's one trick or two, and _then_, if that doesn't restore equity, we give him three more tricks to do that. The question of whether the revoke penalty is insufficient to restore equity only comes up _after_ the penalty is applied. No? >b) Even if we make the revoke penalty part of equity, when >declarer makes a concession in a situation where he might have won an >extra trick by playing a different way, we do not award him the extra >trick unless _all_ normal lines of play give it to him. This is clearly >not the case here. Declarer's equity is _at most_ one trick. I'm not so sure. What might have happened had the revoke never occurred? Would declarer have played differently, resulting in _more_ than however many total tricks he actually took (counting only one of the last two)? (If this was covered earlier in the thread, I missed it. Sorry 'bout that. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN08rL72UW3au93vOEQJt/wCg3XkRWadFAIi4qxuLVdoJK4qAiNgAni+X Y2XUCgF2hhz528FNbI4NwWZW =FKgf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 09:51:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 09:51:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02672 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 09:51:20 +1000 (EST) 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 QAA14623 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 16:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <050d01bea964$f550f5a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 16:51:03 -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> > > >Richard Willey wrote: > >> > >> Let me bring a concrete example to the table. > >> >Any time you wish. Every night, if it comes up. In fact, every round, if > >it comes up. Just > >like falsecards. > >> > >> If, next week, exactly the same hands get dealt, can I make the same > >> bid? > > > Marvin produced some answers: > >Yes. > > > >> What if partner were to open 3C (showing the same hand type only with > >> primary clubs) and I have a bust with clubs? > >> Is it now permissible for me to bid 3N to play? > > > >Yes. > >> > >> I'll readily admit that I psyche a fair amount> > > > +++++ Er, just a minute......... or two....... > Are we forgetting the 40B requirement? > It works like this: > 1. Partner recognizes that I have a habit of psyching > in a particular way or in a particular situation. > 2. As soon as partner knows I have this habit we are > required to disclose it "in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation" Only *special* partnership agreements must be disclosed. Not run-of-the-mill ordinary everyday commonsense bridge tactics that would be employed with a complete stranger as well as a regular partner. The Laws surely include the word *special* for a reason. And what makes an agreement "special*? L75C makes clear that it is an agreement which cannot be inferred from general knowledge and experience, and L73E makes it clear that it does not apply to deceptive practices that are not PROTECTED by concealed partnership understanding or experience. Bluff Blackwood: 3H-P-4NT with S-x H-Qxxxx D-Kxxxx C-xx is a deceptive practice that is not protected, since partner can only respond to the Blackwood call. He can make no use whatsover of the fact that you have been known to do this in the past. When queried about the 4NT bid, he answers that it is Blackwood. When asked if this is ever a bluff bid, he answers that he only has to disclose special partnership agreements, and this bid is not the subject of any *special* partnership agreement or protective scheme. Nowhere in the Laws does it say that one must give a history of partner's deceptive practices that are not PROTECTED by partnership understanding. After 1H-Dbl-1S, however, if partnership experience is such that opener is influenced by previous 1S psychs, in any way whatsover, if only a slight disinclination to raise spades, then the deceptive practice is protected and must be disclosed. If, however, the 1S psych is so rare that opener gives the possibility no serious thought during future action, it is not PROTECTED and the history need not be discussed. If 1S gets doubled for business, opener holding four spades and the doubler promising four spades, then general knowledge and experience tell him 1S was a psych. He need not disclose that knowledge because it is nothing SPECIAL. > 3. Disclosure is likely to involve writing it on the > convention card, since it has become part of our > agreed partnership methods, likely to involve > alerts, and so on. (An implicit agreement is as > much an agreement as an explicit one.) > 4. However, we then find that the regulating authority > has regulations about the use of conventions and > agreements to open on fewer than 8 HCP. These > will probably prohibit such an agreement, or in the > case of the WBF will categorize the method as > HUM. > 5. So the moment we announce our implicit > agreement to opponents, or they read it on the CC, > "Director!" will be the cry, "They are using an illegal > method". And so we are. Correct as to opening bids, I suppose, if a psych is PROTECTED. I open with 0-1 HCP about once a year, maybe less often, when playing with wife Alice, and she never gives a thought to that possibility. Just gives me hell later, after the usual disaster. If asked whether my opening is possibly psychic, her correct answer is "I have no idea whatsoever." "Has he psyched an opening before?" "We have no special understanding about his openings, so I have nothing to disclose." > > Lille ruling: We can be reminded that in Lille the > WBFLC minuted the following - > "The committee affirms that a psychic call or play > which is evidently identified by the course of the > auction or play, as a matter of general bridge > knowledge, is not the subject of an understanding > peculiar to that partnership and is a legitimate ploy. > Other than this an understanding may be created in > the partnership by explicit discussion or by the > implicit learning from repeated partnership experience > out of which it may reasonably be thought the partner > will recall and be influenced by earlier occurrences." If a deceptive practice cannot possibly influence partner's actions, hence is not PROTECTED, this does not apply. He may recall, but he can't be influenced. > > [ A true psyche with no implicit understanding can thus > be exposed in the subsequent action by circumstances > that should be recognizable to any bridge player] > > Addendum: Re David Stevenson's comment on the > pro - client relationship and the desire of the Pro that > the client will fail to notice his habitual aberrations from > system, the Director will look at the question objectively. > The customer is assumed to be a bridge player and to > have an awareness of his partner's actions, to be > capable of identifying a psyche when he sees one. > There is no exclusion clause which says that the > customer is by definition incapable of a normal > appreciation of the actions of his partner, nor is > payment of a Pro's fees an opiate rendering him > oblivious of the actions of his partner whilst fully able, > as experience tells us, to bear witness to the > misdemeanours of opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ I have to agree with that. Clients soon learn from experience, even if not taught explicitly, not to touch a pro's preemptive bids in third position. Just get out the pass card. Just one card at a time, however. Not like the lady in Escondido, who last week after looking at her bust hand took *all* of the pass cards out of the box, and laid them next to the box. She then took the top one and placed it in the bid position. On subsequent rounds she continued to take pass cards one at a time from the pile, thereby making clear to partner that she would make no other call on that deal. Much easier than plucking them out of the box one at a time! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 10:18:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 10:18:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02717 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 10:18:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:17:02 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 20:13:41 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >+++++ Er, just a minute......... or two....... > Are we forgetting the 40B requirement? > It works like this: >1. Partner recognizes that I have a habit of psyching > in a particular way or in a particular situation. >2. As soon as partner knows I have this habit we are > required to disclose it "in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation" >3. Disclosure is likely to involve writing it on the > convention card, since it has become part of our > agreed partnership methods, likely to involve > alerts, and so on. (An implicit agreement is as > much an agreement as an explicit one.) I agree with the patenthetical statement, but it seems to me that as soon as you write an implicit agreement on the convention card, or even discuss it with partner, it becomes explicit, no? >4. However, we then find that the regulating authority > has regulations about the use of conventions and > agreements to open on fewer than 8 HCP. These > will probably prohibit such an agreement, or in the > case of the WBF will categorize the method as > HUM. >5. So the moment we announce our implicit > agreement to opponents, or they read it on the CC, > "Director!" will be the cry, "They are using an illegal > method". And so we are. Hm. This seems to say that a player is not allowed to make a habit of making the same psyche, or the same kind of psyche, or a psyche in a situation which is similar to others in which he's psyched. If so, how do we define "same", "same kind", or "similar"? >Lille ruling: We can be reminded that in Lille the >WBFLC minuted the following - > "The committee affirms that a psychic call or play >which is evidently identified by the course of the >auction or play, as a matter of general bridge >knowledge, is not the subject of an understanding >peculiar to that partnership and is a legitimate ploy. Oops. Now I have a problem. Let's say that I know (is "I'm pretty sure" sufficient? Some of us are lucky to remember what we had for breakfast, much less what partner bid last week. :-) that partner has a habit of psyching such-and-such a bid in such-and-such a situation. Full disclosure would require me to alert his possible psyche, opening up the whole can of worms mentioned above. Yet suppose I also know that every time he's done it in the past, it's been "identified in the course of play". In which case I should _not_ have alerted the psyche, because it's _not_ "the subject of an understanding peculiar to that partnership." Seems like I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't. How do I get out of this briar patch? >Other than this an understanding may be created in >the partnership by explicit discussion or by the >implicit learning from repeated partnership experience >out of which it may reasonably be thought the partner >will recall and be influenced by earlier occurrences." Yeah, but how are we supposed to know which it is at the point where partner makes the bid? Can we predict with any certainty that it will be exposed in the subsequent bidding? (I generally don't psyche, and neither do my usual partners, partly because we have enough trouble figuring out what a bid is _supposed_ to mean, much less whether partner is psyching. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2 iQA/AwUBN08yNr2UW3au93vOEQJ4ggCdGOE+YYRI/G2pW0wdRLb9OWZDogMAn15M kktgd6f3X88RkIRxeMj/hW1J =tB9f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 10:52:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA02796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 10:52:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA02791 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 10:52:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-174.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.174]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA24950 for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:52:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <374F3AF2.D5F6C5C5@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 17:55:14 -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 Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. References: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> <050d01bea964$f550f5a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk While I am on strongly on the pro-psyche side of this discussion, I disagree with Marv here. Comments imbedded; much snipped; attributions attempted to remain correct, with apologies if not. "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Only *special* partnership agreements must be disclosed. Not > run-of-the-mill ordinary everyday commonsense bridge tactics that would > be employed with a complete stranger as well as a regular partner. The > Laws surely include the word *special* for a reason. No, but if you do it with your regular partner, I believe these agreements become "special." We do not live in the age of Culbertson's official system; it is commonsense under that system to do a bunch of things we no longer view as commonsense. In fact, I consider many bidding situations and tactics so obvious and so commonsense as to be immune to alternative arguments; I cannot fathom, for instance, how *anyone* could play their first and second-seat preempts identically. But my partnerships have the agreement that they are played differently; that must be announced. > > And what makes an agreement "special*? L75C makes clear that it is an > agreement which cannot be inferred from general knowledge and > experience, and L73E makes it clear that it does not apply to deceptive > practices that are not PROTECTED by concealed partnership understanding > or experience. I think that all agreements that long-term partnerships have are "special." I pass 13-point hands twice a year. While I consider that treatment "common sense," the opponents are entitled to know this. I open 9-point hands with more frequency than anyone. This is common sense too. I psych 3NT over weak 2's by partner with some frequency; while it's probably been 18 months since my last one, it wouldn't surprise me to try it twice in the next three months. > > Bluff Blackwood: 3H-P-4NT with S-x H-Qxxxx D-Kxxxx C-xx is a deceptive > practice that is not protected, since partner can only respond to the > Blackwood call. He can make no use whatsover of the fact that you have > been known to do this in the past. When queried about the 4NT bid, he > answers that it is Blackwood. When asked if this is ever a bluff bid, he > answers that he only has to disclose special partnership agreements, and > this bid is not the subject of any *special* partnership agreement or > protective scheme. Nowhere in the Laws does it say that one must give a > history of partner's deceptive practices that are not PROTECTED by > partnership understanding. And this is where I disagree vehemently. I've asked questions like this infrequently, and I've always gotten a good response, whether "He's never done it before, but who knows?" to "Yes, he's got a propensity for tactical bids in this situation." This is absolutely a special partnership agreement, if you do it enough. L75C 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. Are you telling me this bluff Blackwood is from general knowledge and experience? Bah! I think this bid is totally useless; this is one of many psychs I hate and won't do. That's my general knowledge and experience. You should tell the opponents even if not asked if done enough. If once a year or so, answer upon inquiry. Failure to answer is unlawful, and I think Marv is plowing a very lonely furrow here. > > After 1H-Dbl-1S, however, if partnership experience is such that opener > is influenced by previous 1S psychs, in any way whatsover, if only a > slight disinclination to raise spades, then the deceptive practice is > protected and must be disclosed. If, however, the 1S psych is so rare > that opener gives the possibility no serious thought during future > action, it is not PROTECTED and the history need not be discussed. Garbage, this is a straight L75C situation. I have a right to know that Alice or whoever will *never* psych this bid, or seldom or sometimes or whenever. And I have a right to know that the last three psychs of this type have been over the last four years and were all done at favorable. Or, whatever. I have a right to every piece of information gleaned from partnership experience. I understand the reasoning behind a part of the anti-psych brigade -- the old K-S "psychs" weren't; they were a part of the system. On rare psychs, even if they pop up a couple of times a year, I think that tendency should be disclosed, but should not constitute a partnership agreement to bid that way. I'm not a big psycher, but I'm disturbed by the rule which appears to say that if I make the same psych twice with the same partner, I have to find a new partner. Marv's method does not solve the problem. This particular windmill ought not be tilted at. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 12:43:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA03047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 12:43:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03042 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 12:43:35 +1000 (EST) 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 10nZ5k-000PvE-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 29 May 1999 02:43:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 03:28:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) In-Reply-To: <01BEA90B.F37C5A20@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <01BEA90B.F37C5A20@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com>, Craig Senior writes >I would not hesitate to give a procedural penalty to a pair that made a >board unplayable by not counting their cards at the start of a hand. I >might let a rank novice get away with it ONCE. This sort of wanton >disregard for the rights of every player in the room comes close to that of >fouling a board through inattention in replacing the cards. The near >automatic penalty, generally accepted in games I have directed, serves as a >wonderful "memory aid" and deterrent. But then I have been known to give >PPs for persistent late play following a warning...especially for those who >leave the room for a snack or a smoke when they lack the time to do so. >Players owe each other a modicum of common courtesy...and that is why they >"shall" do certain necessary things to ensure an orderly game and a >pleasant one for all. It has not been necessary to assess this type of >penalty often...just consistently. > >--- >Craig I do exactly the same at the YC. The game finishes 10 minutes earlier than it used to (and 10 minutes earlier than the nights I don't direct). The frequency of misboarding is about 1/4 of what it was as well. The number of fines issued these days is very low. (although I fined Bernard a pack of cards for pouring his coffee all over the board he'd just played tonight). -- 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 May 29 13:53:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA03113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 13:53:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA03108 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 13:53:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990529035254.CEOO11386.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Fri, 28 May 1999 20:52:54 -0700 Message-ID: <374F65C3.F6416B90@home.com> Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 20:57:55 -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: Another hesitation References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F38E@xion.spase.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot wrote: > South cannot know which of the > alternatives North is holding, hence whether he should double or bid 5C > (5H). So Pass is not an LA in your opinion, by a hand that has already been fully described?!? > And since South's bid cannot be demonstrably related to the hesitation, > South is free in his action. Therefore, 5C stands, but so would a double. Totally wrong,imo. Double *is* demonstrably suggested over both Pass and 5x, since it covers whichever hand North's hesitation was based on. I'm also not so comfortable in allowing the 5C bid (absent the UI it's at best a 10% action, with it it's closer to 50% since Pass goes down to 10%!), but at least that one is close. Double isn't. Come to think of it, a double on that hand is *blatant* use of UI. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 14:39:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA03186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 14:39:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA03180 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 14:39:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxyb2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA24897 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 00:37:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990529003702.0083d100@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 00:37:02 -0400 To: "bridge-laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. In-Reply-To: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:33 PM 5/28/99 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: [Speaking of psyching 3N over partner's 3D preempt.] >>> If, next week, exactly the same hands get dealt, can I make the same >>> bid? >> >Marvin produced some answers: >>Yes. >> >>> What if partner were to open 3C (showing the same hand type only with >>> primary clubs) and I have a bust with clubs? >>> Is it now permissible for me to bid 3N to play? >> >>Yes. >>> >>> I'll readily admit that I psyche a fair amount> >> >+++++ Er, just a minute......... or two....... > Are we forgetting the 40B requirement? > It works like this: >1. Partner recognizes that I have a habit of psyching > in a particular way or in a particular situation. >2. As soon as partner knows I have this habit we are > required to disclose it "in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation" >3. Disclosure is likely to involve writing it on the > convention card, since it has become part of our > agreed partnership methods, likely to involve > alerts, and so on. (An implicit agreement is as > much an agreement as an explicit one.) >4. However, we then find that the regulating authority > has regulations about the use of conventions and > agreements to open on fewer than 8 HCP. These > will probably prohibit such an agreement, or in the > case of the WBF will categorize the method as > HUM. >5. So the moment we announce our implicit > agreement to opponents, or they read it on the CC, > "Director!" will be the cry, "They are using an illegal > method". And so we are. > >Lille ruling: We can be reminded that in Lille the >WBFLC minuted the following - > "The committee affirms that a psychic call or play >which is evidently identified by the course of the >auction or play, as a matter of general bridge >knowledge, is not the subject of an understanding >peculiar to that partnership and is a legitimate ploy. >Other than this an understanding may be created in >the partnership by explicit discussion or by the >implicit learning from repeated partnership experience >out of which it may reasonably be thought the partner >will recall and be influenced by earlier occurrences." I believe it is general bridge knowledge that a 3NT response to a minor suit preempt is sometimes not, shall we say, full value. It is a common situation for psyching. If I were to sit down with any decent bridge player and hear him respond 3NT to my 3D opening bid, I would not be surprised to see him go down 7 or to run to 4D if doubled or to make 10 tricks. Even if you don't believe this is general bridge knowledge, assume it is for a moment. Of course, it wasn't always general bridge knowledge -- it came to be over time. I suppose illegally. Afterall, if everyone who ever tried it was precluded from doing it again, it would not have happened frequently enough to become general bridge knowledge. So, I guess there will never be any new psyches which become general bridge knowledge. This, in my opinion, would be a sad thing. A question: if it is general bridge knowledge that partner may not expect to make 3NT, should I alert? This is a serious question. I read HdW's post earlier in which he suggested all explanations be prefaced by "In theory the bid shows..." This seemed distaseful to me for two reasons: 1) I would have assumed all explanations carried with them an implicit "In theory" that should not require repeating except in the presense of bridge lawyers; and 2) The preface seems to be a dodge, an implication of uncertainty, a hedge. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 19:32:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03627 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02832 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 11:31:50 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374FAA23.BCAB5C5B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:49:39 +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: Psyches - fairly long. References: <3.0.5.32.19990529003702.0083d100@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First of all, let me repeat what Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +++++ Er, just a minute......... or two....... > Are we forgetting the 40B requirement? > It works like this: > 1. Partner recognizes that I have a habit of psyching > in a particular way or in a particular situation. > 2. As soon as partner knows I have this habit we are > required to disclose it "in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation" > 3. Disclosure is likely to involve writing it on the > convention card, since it has become part of our > agreed partnership methods, likely to involve > alerts, and so on. (An implicit agreement is as > much an agreement as an explicit one.) > 4. However, we then find that the regulating authority > has regulations about the use of conventions and > agreements to open on fewer than 8 HCP. These > will probably prohibit such an agreement, or in the > case of the WBF will categorize the method as > HUM. > 5. So the moment we announce our implicit > agreement to opponents, or they read it on the CC, > "Director!" will be the cry, "They are using an illegal > method". And so we are. > There have been a few responses to this, none of which makes me disagree with any of the five steps Grattan puts forward. He is absolutely correct. If after the five steps, you rule, "yes, this is an illegal system", you are, in fact, banishing psyches alltogether. We must not get down that route. Some of you realise that this is a problem, and want to remedy it by attacking one of Grattan's earlier steps, like saying this should not be disclosed or some such. That would be terribly wrong. You should disclose your "partnership experience" concerning frequency and types of psyches. Rather, unless you DO want to banish psyching, you should make the definition of system such that a psyche, even if partnership experience tells one of it's type or frequency, shall not be part of "system", and thus subject to regulation. Of course some safeguards must be built in here, most notably concerning frequency (if you have the systemic meaning 90% of the time you make the bid, the 10% are non-systemic - but calling a multi 2-D a psych with majors would not be correct) and methods for catching the psych (these should be absent !) Lastly, let me comment on what Tim Goodwin wrote: > > > > A question: if it is general bridge knowledge that partner may not expect > to make 3NT, should I alert? This is a serious question. I read HdW's > post earlier in which he suggested all explanations be prefaced by "In > theory the bid shows..." This seemed distaseful to me for two reasons: 1) > I would have assumed all explanations carried with them an implicit "In > theory" that should not require repeating except in the presense of bridge > lawyers; and 2) The preface seems to be a dodge, an implication of > uncertainty, a hedge. > I did not suggest that all explanations should carry those words. I dislike it for the same reasons. Rather, I should think these words, especially in situations like a 3NT call, are to be "understood to be there, even when they are not outspoken". What I was commenting about was someone who, rather than answer "to play", said "promises specifically ...". I commented that the true explanation should have included an "in theory". It is up to the AC in the particular case to determine (from actual wording, intonation, etc) whether or not the "in theory" should have been understood by opponents or was totally absent. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 19:32:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03625 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:31:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02828 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 11:31:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374FA4B5.BC7EA955@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:26:29 +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: Appeal from Moscow References: <005701bea91f$dbabc3e0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin wrote: > > > >>There may be cases where teammates play against one another, > >>and they all know each others methods, where there would not > >>be MI. > > I think play against teammates is not subject of Low 40b. > L40 says "an opposing pair:" not "the opposing pair:" > I understand it as "special partnership understanding may be known for any > opponents". > Maybe is it my bad English? I had never noticed that one. I let the real English speakers answer that. I had always interpreted as "the opponents, adjusted for what the pair knows about it's opponents". When two pairs know one another, slightly less explanation is acceptable than when you are playing against complete strangers. > But in my first question "is it legal to use club_level_knowledge in TD|AC > ruling?" I think about one other aspect. > > LOW 40B > 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. > > Suppose, an action in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring > organisation is "natural" but in accordance with the lub_level_knowledge is > "artifical". > My question is: TD (when he wants to apply L40C) designates this action as > "failure to explain the full meaning" at first in accordance with the > regulations of the sponsoring organisation. If a regulations present then > failure to explain is. And only if there are no the regulations of the > sponsoring organisation TD analysis club_level_knowledge and "may a opposing > pair be reasonably expected to understand meaning of the action". Not > otherwise. Is it true? > > Cheers, Sergey Kapustin When a whole club plays Kapustin convention, but national regulations stipulate that this is alertable, and the auction comes up and is not alerted : - when at the table are two pairs who know one another very well : I will not rule MI and be harsh against who complains - when they know each other reasonably well, and the pair bidding Kapustin is known to be a regular pair : I will not rule MI and tell the opponents they could have asked, "don't you play Kapustin ?" - only when they are totally unknown, I would rule MI, especially if the question would transmit specific UI. I would give a PP for the non-alert in all three cases. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 19:32:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03639 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02844 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 11:31:54 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374FAC71.89BD1EA1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:59:29 +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: Swiss Teams References: <01BEA910.51EB5260@har-pa2-11.ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > Why not? I have frequently had 10 or even 8 teams for a monthly club > swiss and a good time is had by all. The awkward number is 9 since everyone > hates the troikas. So many enjoy these games because they can play "real > bridge" freed from matchpoint scoring. IMP pairs was never even a > possibility before the recent advent of computers when all we had to score > with was a pencil, and most are still unfamiliar with it and less > comfortable than with Swiss; they also enjoy forming teams. > OK, but you were most probably playing Danish then, not Swiss. Danish is when you have 1 play 2 always regardless of whether or not they have already met. Swiss is not good when playing more than a small number of rounds compared to teams. BTW, I have once made the rule that teams (well actually it was pairs at that time) could meet twice, but not a third time. Something between Swiss and Danish, so I called it German ! But I agree, for fun you can do more than for real. I thought Bruce asked for a serious tournament over more than one night. Swiss would not be right then. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 19:32:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03644 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02849 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 11:31:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374FACD2.CF96311F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 11:01:06 +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 is AI for fielding a psyche? References: <3.0.5.32.19990528153441.0084e510@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: > > At 04:35 PM 5/27/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >By definition a (more or less regular) partner is less > >surprised at the particular type of psyche that someone > >effects as the opponents. > > > >When this becomes too clear to this partner, he is obliged > >to inform the opponents as it is "knowledge from partnership > >experience". > > How does one know when something is "too clear"? > How does one ever ? That's what we have TD's and AC's for ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 19:32:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA03650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.15.87]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA03633 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 19:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-12.uunet.be [194.7.13.12]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02838 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 11:31:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <374FAB55.5FB27DE4@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:54:45 +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: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 5/28/99 12:00:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl writes: > > > L54 gives the answer. > > In holland TD-s are instructed to view the faced down card. This, because > > if declarer wont accept the lead OOT, the faced down card should be played > > (and open card is penalty card) if declares doesnt wish to excercise his > > rights under the proper laws. > > regards, > I'm lost! Why are we looking at the faced down card? You are right, Law 54 > applies, but in appling this Law I'm at a loss to understand why I need to > see the faced down proper opening lead. If I don't accept the opening lead > out of turn as declarer I have the options of letting the correct opening > leader lead anything, insisting on the suit, or prohibiting the suit. I pick > one of these, and we go from there. Without ever wanting to suggest anyone could teach you anything, let me explain why it may well be good practice. Suppose declarer asks to lead from the correct hand, without restriction. Remember that the penalty card is still UI for the partner. Would it not carry some meaning to have established that the leader was leading the same card without the UI. I know it is not sufficient to protect from an UI ruling, but at least it carries some weight. If the TD has not seen the card, we don't have this (small) piece of evidence. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 20:48:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA03767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 20:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA03762 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 20:48:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip100.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.100]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990529104751.TYIN18449.fep1@ip100.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 12:47:51 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:48:00 GMT Message-ID: <3762c4f2.3609430@post.tele.dk> References: <374FAB55.5FB27DE4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <374FAB55.5FB27DE4@village.uunet.be> 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 Sat, 29 May 1999 10:54:45 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: >If the TD has not seen the card, we don't have this (small) >piece of evidence. Why not let the card lie face down on the table? The player is not allowed to pick it up unless TD instructs him to do exactly that (L 41A). Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 21:13:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 21:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from ws2.icl.co.uk (mailgate.icl.co.uk [194.176.223.195]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03839 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 21:13:05 +1000 (EST) 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 LAA10764 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 11:09:50 GMT Received: from x400.icl.co.uk by mailgate.icl.co.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24115; Sat, 29 May 1999 12:12:06 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by x400.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id MAA06023 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 29 May 1999 12:11:00 +0100 (BST) X400-Received: by mta umg in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Sat, 29 May 99 12:10:48 +0100 X400-Received: by mta fel01xc in /PRMD=icl/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Sat, 29 May 99 12:02:54 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; converted (IA5-Text) ; Relayed ; Sat, 29 May 99 12:08:21 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Sat, 29 May 99 13:13:00 +0200 Date: Sat, 29 May 99 13:13:00 +0200 X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G20021161C9300000101031BC1F7042E] 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: RE: Swiss Teams Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote >BTW, I have once made the rule that teams (well actually it >was pairs at that time) could meet twice, but not a third >time. >Something between Swiss and Danish, so I called it German ! Poland is also on the way. In small Swiss-like events (pairs or teams, does not matter) we use a rule that 2 contestants can meet many times, but there must predefined number of rounds (say 2 or 3) between meetings. TD should keep track of tournament. Our computer program can do it as well. Jan Romanski ________________________________________ private e-mail: jfr@post.pl From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 21:23:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 21:23:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from dirc.bris.ac.uk (dirc.bris.ac.uk [137.222.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA03861 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 21:23:27 +1000 (EST) 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, 29 May 1999 12:22:56 +0100 Received: (from majcr@localhost) by elios.maths.bris.ac.uk. (8.8.8/8.8.5) id MAA04906; Sat, 29 May 1999 12:22:08 +0100 (BST) From: Jeremy Rickard Message-Id: <199905291122.MAA04906@elios.maths.bris.ac.uk.> Subject: Re: OPENING Pass To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 12:22:08 +0100 (BST) Cc: j.rickard@Bristol.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990527164351.0072db60@pop.mindspring.com> from "Michael S. Dennis" at May 27, 99 04:43:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Dennis wrote: > Opposite my 18-count, the fact that partner has less than opening values > makes bidding slam less attractive, and does "demonstrably suggest" 3nt > over 6nt, if that could be considered an LA, which it is not. > > But the information that partner has less than opening values has no > appreciable impact upon the likely success of 3nt, simply because of the > comparatively low probability of partner having such a hand a priori. I > haven't run the numbers, but I would guess that the information effectively > reduces partners expected HCP from 7.33 to about 7.0 or 7.1 HCP. Getting a bit off-topic, but a rough computer simulation suggests it's closer to 6.6 HCP. It's true that the hands where partner has an opening bid are not that common (about 11%) a priori, but on the other hand they have a larger effect on the average because they're a long way from average. > Certainly > this reduces the odds on the success of 3nt by some measurable amount, Assuming 3NT will almost always make when partner *does* have an opening bid, the difference will be somewhere around 6%: reducing from about 50% to 44%, say. > but > enough to "demonstrably suggest" some lesser action? I think not. I'm not sure the edge from the UI here is significantly less than in many more clearcut cases: e.g., 1H-3D(limit raise)-3H(after long thought)-4H. > I'm not sure whether this is a disagreement about quantity or just about > direction. Would it make a difference in your conclusion if we were > considering a 21-count rather than an 18-count, or would virtually any > reduction in the odds of success suffice to meet the "demonstrably > suggested by" criterion? It had never occurred to me to read any quantitative criterion into "demonstrably suggested". It can be just as easy (sometimes easier) to "demonstrate" that some information increases the odds of some bid's success when the increase is 0.1% as when it's 10%. > I did not mean to impugn anyone's motives, although I apologize if you > found my observation to be offensive. Many of those (but certainly not all) > who have made the UI case have expressed strong indignation about North's > psyche above and beyond the UI issues. Taken together with the flimsy > character of the UI argument, and the difficulty of finding any other > suitable legal tool with which to punish North, it seems to me that some of > those folks have seized upon the UI issue with more enthusiasm and less > critical analysis than they might otherwise bring to bear. That's why I asked about the raise to 3NT, of course. I also had the feeling that a few people were looking for a crime to fit the punishment, and wanted to raise an example that was similar apart from the psyche. Jeremy. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 21:49:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 21:49:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03918 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 21:49:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA03947 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 07:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 07:49:27 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) In-Reply-To: <374E7934.6F64C925@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 28 May 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard lighton wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 May 1999, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > > > > I believe that when something carries no penalty, it should > > > be allowed. > > > > > > You cannot say in one law that something carries no penalty > > > and then use another law to penalize it, simply because you > > > did the thing knowingly in stead of inadvertently. > > > L57 carries no such distinction, so there can never be a > > > penalty. > > > > > > What is the use of saying that something is not allowed when > > > there is no penalty to be given to it ? > > > > > I find this to be a very bad argument. Take Law 7B1 > > > > "Each player shall count his cards face down to be sure he has exactly > > thirteen; . . ." > > > > >From the preface: > > > > "In contrast, when these Laws say a player "shall" do something . . . > > a violation will be penalized more often than not." > > > > Oh yeah? > > And what is the prescribed penalty? > > > > That the board can become unplayable, in which case the > offender will receive average-minus. > But that is only a very small proportion of the times that the failure to follow the law is penalized in a situation where the laws say "a violation will be penalized more often than not." What of the other 999999 times out of the 1000000? Enough. -- Richard Lighton |"Why, I can remember the time when people offered us human (lighton@idt.net)| sacrifices--No mistake about it--human sacrifices! Think Wood-Ridge NJ | of that!" USA |"Ah! Those good old days!" --W. S. Gilbert (Thespis) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 29 23:50:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA04158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 May 1999 23:50:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04153 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 23:50:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp236-117.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.117]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA22652; Sat, 29 May 1999 15:50:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007001bea947$61edd020$75ecf1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Steve Willner" , Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 22:18:25 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You will not be surprised that I don't follow you when you say that 45C4B and 25A are two of the worst laws (from how many exactly? If that answer is 70 or so I agree again, from a logical point of view). But if you wanted to say that 25A (and 45C4b) are the most difficult to apply I I am the first to admit (this is what I am saying my future-TD's all the time). And thereafter I explain them that a TD has to be completely convinced that the act was really inadvertent to allow the change. No compromises permitted. But your reaction brings doubt in my mind, making that distinction between inattentive and unintentional. I read those as synonyms when applying those laws: without consciousness. May be I can use other descriptions still, to complete the chaos: the player never wanted to do what happened; a force outside himself made him do this; there is no possible explanation for what happened; he made a random call or play, without purpose. These descriptions are not synonyms, but all can be considered inadvertent, I thought. May I ask you to explain yourself? That could help us to improve the 'worst of' laws. ton -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal >Here's something I posted to RGB. The laws comments were based mainly >on postings to BLML, but of course the obvious personal opinions are >mine. Comments or corrections welcome. > >----- >L45C4b and the corresponding L25A for the auction seem to me two of >the worst laws in the book precisely because they are so unclear. It >doesn't help that 'inadvertent' has two similar but distinct meanings >nor that mind reading is needed to determine whether an action >qualifies for either one of them. If I may summarize the >requirements for changing an action, as it appears the laws now >stand: > >1) The action must have been inadvertent at the time made (according > to whichever definition you give 'inadvertent'), > >2) the player taking the action must have attempted to change it, > >3) there must have been no pause for thought between the player's > noticing the inadvertent action and _initiating_ (not necessarily > _completing_) the attempt to change, and > >4) for a call (but not a play), the player's partner must not have > called since. > >Vancouver Case 5 seems an excellent candidate for appeal to the >National Authority (L93C) precisely because the controversy is mainly >a matter of unclear law rather than fact or bridge judgment. Too bad >no such appeal was lodged. I'll be quite interested to see the >expert commentary on this case. >----- > >The two meanings of 'inadvertent' (from my old Merriam-Webster): >1) not turning the mind to a matter: inattentive >2) unintentional > >The example of passing partner's forcing 1C bid would be inadvertent >under 1) but not under 2), so the definition adopted makes a practical >difference. It seems 1) requires less mind reading than 2), and 1) >seems more consistent with my understanding of the history of this >law, but 2) seems to be more popular, at least on this list. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 00:16:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 00:16:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA06448 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 00:15:54 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (531) by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 5TBLa15536; Sat, 29 May 1999 10:14:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8a92bee9.2481503f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 10:14:23 EDT Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/29/99 5:34:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > Without ever wanting to suggest anyone could teach you > anything, let me explain why it may well be good practice. Kinda snide, but that goes with the territory. At least you care enough to respond. Besides my grandchildren are constantly teaching me everything. > > Suppose declarer asks to lead from the correct hand, without > restriction. > Remember that the penalty card is still UI for the partner. > Would it not carry some meaning to have established that the > leader was leading the same card without the UI. > I know it is not sufficient to protect from an UI ruling, > but at least it carries some weight. > If the TD has not seen the card, we don't have this (small) > piece of evidence. Let me see if I have this correct. You are saying that when the leads are not simultaneous, (i.e. the lead out of turn is the only opening lead) and when the declarer turns to his LHO and says, lead anything, that the proper leader then, with the penalty card in full view, does not take that card into consideration? How about what it says in Law 50 D 1 ....the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner....)Or better yet, when there is a penalty card on the table, at any time, and the partner has the lead and is instructed by the declarer to lead anything, that the penalty card is not considered is not taken into account by the leader? You have a little bit of evidence about what? That the proper leader used UI in selecting his/her lead? You, the TD are going to decide what the lead would have been without the penalty card on the table? OK, I got it!! We play bridge for the players. The declarer, with all options understood decides to want the proper leader to lead ANY CARD ....Law 50 D 2 (b)...... But you are going to consider UI on this lead. Having placed the Spade Ace face down, and seeing partner with the Spade King faced on the table, you are going to require the proper leader to lead the Spade Ace? Sure. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 02:31:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:31:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06856 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:31:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.198]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990529163123.TYWP16228.fep4@ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 18:31:23 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:31:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37560124.5385714@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA06858 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 28 May 1999 20:13:41 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >Oops. Now I have a problem. Let's say that I know (is "I'm pretty sure" >sufficient? Some of us are lucky to remember what we had for breakfast, >much less what partner bid last week. :-) that partner has a habit of >psyching such-and-such a bid in such-and-such a situation. Full disclosure >would require me to alert his possible psyche, opening up the whole can of >worms mentioned above. Yes, this is a can of worms. Many players use psyche-like calls that occur often enough in particular situations for partner to be aware of it, but still so rarely and randomly that it might seem reasonable to threat them as psyches in the context of allowing or forbidding a system. Since full disclosure has (should have) first priority, this is a matter for the systems regulations. Such regulations or (more often, I expect) their practical interpretation, may be tolerant of "psyches" that contain a certain degree of partnership understanding. The fact that a partnership honestly alerts and explains its tendencies to occasional "psyches" should not automatically outlaw the system - if these "psyches" are rare and random enough and if there is no system designed to identify them. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 02:31:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:31:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06851 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:31:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.198]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990529163116.TYWN16228.fep4@ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 18:31:16 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another hesitation Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:31:18 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3751fa3e.3620465@post12.tele.dk> References: <9+yCo2D2qIT3Ew5e@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <9+yCo2D2qIT3Ew5e@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA06852 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 May 1999 00:58:46 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Clearly pass is a logical alternative to 5C (or 5H.) but is the >5-level bid suggested over pass by the slow pass? It seems clear that the hesitation makes pass less attractive than it would otherwise have been. The UI suggests that the correct action is either double or bid on, not pass. Though the UI does not show which of the two is likely to be successful, it does suggest [double or 5C] over pass, and that is IMO enough to satisfy the requirement for adjusting. You might look at it another way: with the UI, 5C becomes more likely and pass becomes less likely than before to be the correct action. So 5C is suggested over pass. Double is also suggested over pass - it also becomes more likely to be the correct action. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 02:31:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:31:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06864 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:31:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.198]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990529163129.TYWT16228.fep4@ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 18:31:29 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:31:30 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <376414cf.10420594@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA06865 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 May 1999 13:04:05 +0100, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > I do think we have exhausted useful discussion. Of L57C itself, yes. But I would like to concentrate on the much more important question than the wording of L57C itself: Is there such a thing as an irregularity that is allowed? I would have thought obviously not, but then Grattan wrote: On Mon, 24 May 1999 22:46:10 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++++ Law 57C describes the premature play as an irregularity - a deviation >from correct procedure - when declarer has played from both hands etc. >But it is a deviation for which the player will not be penalized. He is >thus licensed to do it without sanction and, in that state of the law, it >could not be considered an impropriety. The laws define an irregularity as "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws". L74A3 says: "Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing". My problem is that I simply cannot understand what "correct procedure" (or L74A3) means if you are allowed to deviate from it. IMO "correct procedure" is (and must be) the set of actions that you are allowed to take; any other action is an irregularity, and thus not allowed (regardless of whether or not there is a penalty for doing it). I would be perfectly happy with a conclusion that L57C just uses the wrongs words, and that Grattan's meaning is that the action it describes really is (or should be) correct procedure, not an irregularity (despite the word "irregularity" in the headline). There are problems like this one in at least one other law: L25B uses the words "penalty" and "infraction" about something that it also says is allowed. But L25B is so obviously terrible anyway that I have always assumed that it was just one of the ways in which L25B is flawed. The question arose in the long debate between Herman, Grattan, and myself about L57C. It might be interesting to also hear opinions from other people. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 02:34:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:34:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06933 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:34:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.198]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990529163419.TYZN16228.fep4@ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 18:34:19 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:34:20 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37701708.10989952@post12.tele.dk> References: <37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be><374a1c6f.4177917@post12.tele.dk><37482C64.2F977E89@village.uunet.be> <3.0.5.32.19990524224536.00ae8470@cable.mail.a2000.nl> <003401bea62f$7cda2f20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <374A78F0.3E93CEF7@village.uunet.be> <374cdeb5.2988837@post12.tele.dk> <374BC385.EF75946C@village.uunet.be> <374e4895.3142188@post12.tele.dk> <374CFA36.9A3A753B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <374CFA36.9A3A753B@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA06935 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 May 1999 09:54:30 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >That's because you were not making sense in the first place. >You call something a small irregularity, because it is only >slightly punished. From that you deduce that it should not >be severly punished. No, I call something a harmless irregularity because it can never gain and does not disturb the play of the board - except once in a while when opponents can gain by it. I would appreciate it if you would stop telling BLML in your words what you think I say and instead let them read my words for themselves. I may or may not be making sense - but please let BLML judge that by my own words and not by your modified version of them. >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> Do you really find it natural that this should be penalized by >> allowing defenders to also commit an irregularity - one that can >> actually sometimes gain? Are there any other places where the law >> book prescribes a penalty consisting of allowing the opponents an >> irregularity? > >Many ! > >When a call out of turn is accepted, that too is a call out >of turn, which remains an irregularity by your use of the >word. No, it is specifically made correct procedure by the law allowing the acceptance of the call. But I will admit that that was a probably useless comparison, because it just gets us back to the question of whether "not to be penalized" is the same as "allowed". >Declarer should certainly refrain fro doing this - it is >even more disconcerting than dummy (the person, not the >hand) playing out of turn. Yes, but the penalty if he does should be a PP, not opponent's taking advantage of a chance to play out of turn themselves. >> An inattentive defender who happens to play out turn without noticing >> that dummy's play was not in turn has committed an irregularity for >> which there is no penalty - that is what L57C says, it is perfectly >> reasonable, and there are no problems in that. >> >> But we are not talking about an inattentive defender - we are talking >> about a defender who sees declarer play out of turn from dummy, who >> fully realizes that dummy's play was out of turn, and who nevertheless >> deliberately wants to play out of turn himself, either to gain an >> advantage in the play or to annoy declarer. > >So again you are making a difference in ruling dependent on >the intentions of defender - which we can only know if he >tells us ! Yes. I'm not worried about ruling this at the table - I'm discussing whether it is proper for an ethical player to deliberately play out of turn. >> That is a violation of L72B2. > >Only if you consider an irregularity that goes unpunished an >infraction. The words in L72B2 are "must not infringe a law intentionally". I think deviation from the procedure set out in a law is covered by those words, regardless of whether or not the word "infraction" used in the "Scope of the Laws" is considered to have some special meaning. >>(And, if done to annoy declarer, L74A1 and L74A2.) > >Well, since declarer or dummy started the annoying, that >argument works both ways. We are not discussing whether declarer has committed an irregularity. Of course he has, and he can be penalized by a PP. L10A makes it clear that the way to penalize annoying behaviour is _not_ for the opponents to be annoying themselves. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 02:34:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06941 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:34:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.198]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990529163425.TYZR16228.fep4@ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 18:34:25 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: L57 and L72B2 (was Re: Declarer faces cards) Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:34:26 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <376f168f.10869499@post12.tele.dk> References: <374e1322.2977942@post12.tele.dk> <374BC4D3.FF63DC4B@village.uunet.be> <374d485d.3086658@post12.tele.dk> <374CFC37.8039B1E7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <374CFC37.8039B1E7@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA06943 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 27 May 1999 10:03:03 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> >> >If some (irregularity) carries no penalty, then why should >> >we disallow it nevertheless ? >> >> Because it is an irregularity! If it is not disallowed, then it must >> be allowed; if it is allowed, it must be correct procedure; if it is >> correct procedure, then it is not an irregularity. There can be no >> such thing as an "allowed irregularity". >> > >Circular reasoning again ! No. >I had put (irregularity) between brackets to indicate that I >do not believe it to be an irregularity but need a word to >describe that what we know we are talking of. Sorry - I thought you meant irregularity when you said irregularity and not understand the parenthesis. >But your reasoning is : > >this is an irregularity, so it can not be allowed, and if it >is not allowed, then it is an irregularity. No, my reasonning was: this is an irregularity (by the word in the headline of L57C and by your own word in parenthesis), so it can not be allowed. Period. >I believe that when something carries no penalty, it should >be allowed. You were actually the one to correctly point out that L72B2 is worded so that it obviously includes offenses for which there is no prescribed penalty. >What is the use of saying that something is not allowed when >there is no penalty to be given to it ? The use is to tell the large majority of the world's bridge players who want to play bridge legally and correctly how they should behave. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 02:38:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA06974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:38:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep4.post.tele.dk (fep4.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA06969 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 02:38:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.198]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990529163809.TZFM16228.fep4@ip198.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 18:38:09 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 18:38:10 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37711715.11003281@post12.tele.dk> References: <007001bea947$61edd020$75ecf1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <007001bea947$61edd020$75ecf1c3@kooijman> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA06970 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 28 May 1999 22:18:25 +0200, "ton kooijman" wrote: >You will not be surprised that I don't follow you when you say that 45C4B >and 25A are two of the worst laws I think L25A is good law. Players can understand the distinction: "Did you get hold of the 2S calling card by a physical error trying to grab a different card, or did you actually reach for 2S?" usually gets a clear and honest answer. L25B, on the other hand ... -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 05:08:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA07207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 05:08:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA07202 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 05:08:05 +1000 (EST) 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 MAA27328 for ; Sat, 29 May 1999 12:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <064c01beaa06$8d66c1c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws List" References: <376414cf.10420594@post12.tele.dk> Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 12:05:46 -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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > There are problems like this one in at least one other law: L25B uses > the words "penalty" and "infraction" about something that it also says > is allowed. But L25B is so obviously terrible anyway that I have > always assumed that it was just one of the ways in which L25B is > flawed. > A similar example is L20F1, which requires that a player ask for an explanation of the auction before inquiring (when necessary, with L16 in mind) about any particular call. This intent was confirmed in the Lille LC minutes, with the remark that infringing this law "should not normally attract a penalty." This despite L72B2, "a player must not infringe a law intentionally..." "Must" is a very strong word, according to the Preface. It "indicates that violation is regarded as serious indeed." But not by the WBFLC, evidently. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 06:07:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA07354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 06:07:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07349 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 06:07:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id PAA19845 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 29 May 1999 15:08:21 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199905292008.PAA19845@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 15:08:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Grant, > > >[To use someone else's example, if a > >revoke blocks a suit and prevents declarer from winning 5 tricks in dummy, > >we may use L64C to give him his 5 tricks back. Are you saying we should > >give him his 5 tricks back _plus_ a two trick revoke penalty as equity?] > > This one jumped out at me. Seems to me we first give him his revoke > penalty, whether it's one trick or two, and _then_, if that doesn't restore > equity, we give him three more tricks to do that. The question of whether > the revoke penalty is insufficient to restore equity only comes up _after_ > the penalty is applied. No? I agree completely. We apply the penalty, then compare the number of tricks the player got with the penalty to the number he would have had if there had been no revoke. If the second number is higher than the first, we give declarer those tricks back as 'equity'. But we do not give declarer his equity first and _then_ add the penalty on top of that. But it seems to me that this is what some of the posters to this thread are, in effect, proposing. > >b) Even if we make the revoke penalty part of equity, when > >declarer makes a concession in a situation where he might have won an > >extra trick by playing a different way, we do not award him the extra > >trick unless _all_ normal lines of play give it to him. This is clearly > >not the case here. Declarer's equity is _at most_ one trick. > > I'm not so sure. What might have happened had the revoke never occurred? > Would declarer have played differently, resulting in _more_ than however > many total tricks he actually took (counting only one of the last two)? (If > this was covered earlier in the thread, I missed it. Sorry 'bout that. :-) It hasn't been covered that I know of--I was assuming it was not relevant to this specific case, or David S. would have mentioned it. I certainly agree that if declarer would have taken more tricks without the revoke than the trick he actually took plus two, he should be given the larger number. > Regards, > > Ed > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 09:08:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 09:08:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07686 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 09:08:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip12.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.12]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990529230753.WCMC18449.fep1@ip12.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 01:07:53 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 01:07:53 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37506e50.745171@post12.tele.dk> References: <007001bea947$61edd020$75ecf1c3@kooijman> <37711715.11003281@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <37711715.11003281@post12.tele.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA07687 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 29 May 1999 18:38:10 +0200, I wrote: >I think L25A is good law. I don't know what I was thinking about when I wrote that. The inadvertency part is IMO no problem, but the "pause for thought" part is problematical, as we have discussed earlier. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 15:41:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 15:41:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhub.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA08253 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 15:40:58 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 15:40:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11722 invoked from network); 30 May 1999 05:40:48 -0000 Received: from pm02-105.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.105) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 30 May 1999 05:40:48 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990530013926.36cf282e@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: Swiss Teams Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi I would most likely play that 10 team "event" as Round Robin but with a small change to what they do at those in the ACBL. namely i would make sure every match played the same boards, since some of the short matches are fairly flat and it is most fair that all teams gets to play the same boards in each and every match We are not talking about that 2 million hands needs to get duplicated. to get 1 evening done with the 10 team game we would need to make 5 copies of each board since you want to make sure both table play the SAME board and that all tables play the same duplicate board. Making a set of in this case let say 9 boards / match and 3 matches per night would only mean 27 boards in all and running those thru the duplimate(card dealing machine) wouldnt take long and you get the bonus that you can run an pairs event too in finding out the best pair to with imps across the feild. robert From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 17:22:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 17:22:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08397 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 17:22:36 +1000 (EST) 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 AAA12823 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 00:22:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <072901beaa6d$2aa70a60$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.16.19990530013926.36cf282e@pop3.iag.net> Subject: Re: Swiss Teams Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 00:16:24 -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 Robert Nordgren wrote:> > > Hi > I would most likely play that 10 team "event" as Round Robin but with a > small change to what they do at those in the ACBL. namely i would make sure > every match played the same boards, since some of the short matches are > fairly flat and it is most fair that all teams gets to play the same boards > in each and every match > > We are not talking about that 2 million hands needs to get duplicated. > > > to get 1 evening done with the 10 team game we would need to make 5 copies > of each board since you want to make sure both table play the SAME board > and that all tables play the same duplicate board. Making a set of in this > case let say 9 boards / match and 3 matches per night would only mean 27 > boards in all and running those thru the duplimate(card dealing machine) > wouldnt take long > > and you get the bonus that you can run an pairs event too in finding out > the best pair to with imps across the feild. > Very good points. And if boards can't be duplicated then have straight win/loss for matches, no carryover of imps or VPs. Can you imagine a sports team that wants to accumulate scores from game to game? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 17:29:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA08423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 17:29:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA08418 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 17:29:47 +1000 (EST) 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 AAA13166 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 00:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <072e01beaa6e$2bc667a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 00:29:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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 The problem: If a pair has conditional initial actions based on the defenses being used, and the opponents have conditional defensive actions depending on the nature of the initial action, a conflict exists. I don't recall that anyone came up with a solution to this matter, so I'll give it a shot. After very helpful discussions with Eric Landau, Steve Willner, and Danny Kleinman, here is what I have come up with, at least for ACBL-land: If I am all wet, the fault is mine and not theirs, especially since at least two of them will disagree with some points.. Let's start with the ACBL regulation: ########## 1. Both members of a partnership must use the same system. They must use identical methods. (During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission from the Tournament Director. The Director might allow a pair to change a convention but almost never their basic system.) 5. At the beginning of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their own defenses against their opponents' conventional calls and preempts. Opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. ########## Definitions (In the absence of any from the ACBL, these are mine): "System" refers not only to the partnership's agreements concerning the meaning and forcing nature of various calls, but also to the strength required for them. It is not restricted to what appears on their convention card (cc), but includes all partnership agreements, explicit and implicit, that are in force. "Defense" is an action that follows another action, not one that precedes it. Conclusions: (1) Regulation 1. should make clear that changing a convention must not have anything to do with some defensive measure a pair is encountering. The only justification I can think of is that a pair cannot handle a convention properly and requiring them to retain it would be detrimental to the game. (2) "Session of play" in Regulation 1. should be changed to "an event." It is unfair for a pair to play different systems against different opponents in the same event, or to play different systems against the same opponents in, for instance, a long team-of-four match that extends over several sessions. (I suppose it would be okay to change system between knockout rounds) (3) Regulation 5. should be changed to read "against the methods of their opponents." It should also make clear that such changes must be the same for all opposing pairs who use whatever method is being countered. There is no reason to restrict a change in defenses to those dealing only with conventions and preempts. Defensive measures cannot be predetermined for every conceivable method that might be encountered. If someone unexpectedly plays 19-21 HCP one notrump openings against us, we should be able to change our penalty double to a conventional double. When a defense is adopted against a particular action, the spirit of these regulations is that the same defense must be used against all pairs employing that action. (4) A pair must bid and play according to their system, except for changes permitted by Regulations 1. and 5. Opponents have a right to know the methods being used against them. This means that if light overcalls are indicated on the cc, a pair cannot switch to sound overcalls because an opposing pair is playing penalty doubles. That would be a change of system, illegal. Tightening up is okay if partner isn't aware of it, but such a legal deviation from system can quickly become an implicit and unethical SPECIAL partnership agreement. (5) Conditional initial actions that depend on defenses against them are not permitted. Conditions such as "light overcalls against negative doubles, sound overcalls against penalty doubles" are tantamount (sorry, David) to changing system according to an opposing cc, which is permitted only for defensive actions. (6) Conditional defensive actions that depend on opposing methods are permitted. Whether predefined or *ad hoc* doesn't matter, a pair can agree to different defenses vs different opposing methods, as long as they use the same defenses against others who employ those methods. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 19:02:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:02:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.204]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08511 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem107.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.235] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10o1Tz-0007OH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 May 1999 10:02:16 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 09:20:35 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never!" - Hans Richter at rehearsal. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > From: Marvin L. French > To: Bridge Laws List > Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? > Date: 29 May 1999 20:05 > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > > > There are problems like this one in at least one other law: > > > Marvin: > A similar example is L20F1, which requires that a player ask for an > explanation of the auction before inquiring (when necessary, with L16 in > mind) about any particular call. This intent was confirmed in the Lille > LC minutes, with the remark that infringing this law "should not > normally attract a penalty." This despite L72B2, "a player must not > infringe a law intentionally..." > > "Must" is a very strong word, according to the Preface. It "indicates > that violation is regarded as serious indeed." But not by the WBFLC, > evidently. > ++++ These feelings are possible because 72B2 is not consistent with the 'Scope and Interpretation', and lies adjacently with 84A in a way that is ill-defined. In my view it is self-evident that when the S & I makes a distinction between the seriousness of one contravention of law and another the gravity of a deliberate breach is proportionate, and to excite oneself over a departure from correct procedure which the laws exclude from penalty is like making faces at a gorilla through the bars of a cage. Perhaps 72B2 should deal with the point that lies behind it by saying that to violate a law deliberately on the basis of one's willingness to accept a prescribed penalty is improper (maybe drawing the Director's attention to Laws 84E and 90A)? And in 84A perhaps we should point up exactly what should engage the Director's discretionary attention. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 19:02:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:02:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.204]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08512 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:02:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem107.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.235] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10o1Tv-0007OH-00 for Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 May 1999 10:02:12 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 08:55:02 +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: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan ---------------------------------------------------- "Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never!" - Hans Richter at rehearsal. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ---------- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: 28 May 1999 23:08 "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > A high-ranking ACBL official once told me that I should disclose the > fact that partner is prone to falsecarding against novices with the ace > or queen over the KJ in dummy. As is a common ploy, he will make a > discouraging discard with the ace and an encouraging one with the queen, ++++ That strikes me as the most fatuous advice I have seen given in a long time. The only times there may be anything to read into the 'signal' is when partner *needs* to know whether I have the other honour or not or when I see a need to tell partner to lead the suit. That apart, a novice may well not notice what card I play and when he has been playing for a week or two our learner will ignore it like everyone else. I have not come across any law or regulation that requires every card in defence to carry a message and I would say that as a matter of general bridge knowledge any inclination to read meanings into every card can be resisted. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 19:02:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:02:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net (svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net [194.152.65.204]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08510 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem107.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.235] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10o1Ty-0007OH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 May 1999 10:02:15 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Clear enough Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 09:13:34 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never!" - Hans Richter at rehearsal. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > > From: Tim Goodwin > > To: Bridge Laws > > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > > Date: 28 May 1999 20:34 > > > > At 04:35 PM 5/27/99 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >By definition a (more or less regular) partner is less > >surprised at the particular type of psyche that someone > >effects as the opponents. > > > >When this becomes too clear to this partner, he is obliged > >to inform the opponents as it is "knowledge from partnership > >experience". > > How does one know when something is "too clear > ++++ If partner can recall previous psychics in the same situation - e.g." from time to time he likes to psyche a Spade overcall over a natural 1C or 1D opener, so this One Spade might not be genuine" - or of a particular type - e.g." third in hand I know he will sometimes open 1NT without the values".. It is the awareness of what calls partner is known to psyche at times, or of bidding situations in which he may well not have his bid, that draws his habit into the partnership understandings, and if partner is aware opponents are also entitled to be aware (no matter whether partner uses the knowledge or not). As for those of our colleagues who say "but if this is so it rules out all psychics", what they need to think about is whether in all probability what they call psychics do not qualify for the description because of the partnership experience surrounding their use. At present our game does not cater for the 'psychic' that partner can anticipate : there is an apparent view held by some (or many?) that the laws should tolerate undisclosed, gross, departures from system with partnership awareness, but this is not what we have at present and I do not see how the law on this could be changed and retain the first priority of fairness for opponents. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 19:40:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:40:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08591 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:40:46 +1000 (EST) 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 LAA15358 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 11:40:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3751053F.F4206BB7@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 11:30:39 +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: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn References: <8a92bee9.2481503f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > in selecting his/her lead? You, the TD are going to decide what the lead > would have been without the penalty card on the table? OK, I got it!! We > play bridge for the players. The declarer, with all options understood > decides to want the proper leader to lead ANY CARD ....Law 50 D 2 (b)...... > But you are going to consider UI on this lead. Having placed the Spade Ace > face down, and seeing partner with the Spade King faced on the table, you are > going to require the proper leader to lead the Spade Ace? Sure. No, absolutely not ! But when a player, having first selected a heart lead, now selects clubs, and when questioned to see if this lead was influenced by the UI, states "I was also leading that before I saw partner's card", I would like to have that for fact and not rely on his saying so. I realise it should not matter, but when we don't have the evidence, we cannot decide about it. When the player does NOT change his chosen opening lead, I want to allow him to be able to prove that, by a method which does not tell the other players if he has or has not changed his card. The method to do this is for the TD to look at the faced down lead, then put it in the hand, and then let the player select his new lead. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 19:40:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:40:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08583 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:40:42 +1000 (EST) 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 LAA15354 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 11:40:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375102F0.EFDE8C68@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 11:20:48 +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: L17D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yesterday something very amusing happened. A player calls me, telling she has only 12 cards. Nobody had 14, so I allow a substitute board to be put on the table. (it was barometer) However, one opponent was very severely handicapped, and had already gone through quite a lot of trouble putting his cards into the tray he uses to keep them. So I allowed him to keep the cards he had, put the second board on top of the first, and instructed the other three players to take their cards from the second board. Since these had other backsides, the view of the table was quite funny. Several other players who had by then finished play, saw this and laughed, although everybody understood of course. Along comes Jan Boets, co-TD and blml reader, who watches the whole thing and comments, without looking it up : L17D. Another one for Grattan's notebook. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 19:40:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:40:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA08582 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:40:41 +1000 (EST) 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 LAA15344 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 11:40:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375101CC.60E9745F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 11:15:56 +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: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? References: <376414cf.10420594@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > Is there such a thing as an irregularity that is allowed? I would > have thought obviously not, but then Grattan wrote: > > On Mon, 24 May 1999 22:46:10 +0100, "Grattan" > wrote: > >++++ Law 57C describes the premature play as an irregularity - a deviation > >from correct procedure - when declarer has played from both hands etc. > >But it is a deviation for which the player will not be penalized. He is > >thus licensed to do it without sanction and, in that state of the law, it > >could not be considered an impropriety. > > The laws define an irregularity as "A deviation from the correct > procedures set forth in the Laws". > indeed. > L74A3 says: "Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure > in calling and playing". > indeed. Should. > My problem is that I simply cannot understand what "correct procedure" > (or L74A3) means if you are allowed to deviate from it. > What's the problem? In some cases, deviations from correct procedure go unpunished. > IMO "correct procedure" is (and must be) the set of actions that you > are allowed to take; any other action is an irregularity, and thus not > allowed (regardless of whether or not there is a penalty for doing > it). > Why ? Why can you not simply allow for the fact that some irregularities go unpunished ? That seems the easy part of the problem to me. Whether or not L72B2 is valid on "unpunished irregularities", making them "allowed irregularities" is another question, and one which I have answered for myself, but I agree that this is not without possible doubt. But there is no rule of language or bridge which says that all irregularities must be punished, or some such. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 30 21:29:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 May 1999 21:29:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08770 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 21:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.144.224]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990530113126.PVND7623210.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 23:31:26 +1200 Message-ID: <375120D4.31229BEF@xtra.co.nz> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 23:28:20 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn References: <374E8345.55DCBA6E@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: > > A proper face down opening lead is made simultaneously with a face up > opening lead out of turn. > > L58A Simultaneous plays to another players legal play are deemed > subsequent. > > L41A Face down opening lead is a legal play. > > Do we therefore face opening lead and partner's OOT lead is a major > penalty card and either played to first trick (if legal) or L50 applies? > > Or is there more to this? > > Wayne So Law 54 applies - I was not aware of the additional preface to this law. "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply. " I assume it is intended that the following sections also apply when the faced opening lead OOT is *not* accompanied by a face down lead by the non-offending partner. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 00:52:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 00:52:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11335 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 00:52:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.42]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990530145239.YFNM18449.fep1@ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 16:52:39 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 16:52:39 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37554eaf.4563772@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id AAA11337 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 May 1999 09:20:35 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >In my view it is self-evident that when the S & I >makes a distinction between the seriousness of one contravention of >law and another the gravity of a deliberate breach is proportionate, I agree completely with that. Not all violations of L72B2 are to be penalized. >and to excite oneself over a departure from correct procedure which >the laws exclude from penalty is like making faces at a gorilla through >the bars of a cage. I am not excited over a departure from the correct procedure. My concern is not over penalties at all. I am concerned that according to your position as I understand it I am unable to tell a player (beforehand) whether or not he is allowed to do something. I would expect that to be a simple question of saying "yes" if it is correct procedure according to the book, "no" otherwise. But now you have stated that an irregularity (a deviation from correct procedure) in some situations can be "not an impropriety". I cannot make any sense out of the words "not an impropriety" that differs from "allowed" (if this is a lack in my understanding of English, please tell me so). So as I understand it, you seem to be saying that there are situations where the answer to the question is "yes, you are allowed to do that", even though the action is an irregularity according to the book. And if it really is so, then it seems to me that the concept of "correct procedure" has no meaning. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 00:52:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 00:52:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from fep1.post.tele.dk (fep1.post.tele.dk [195.41.46.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA11331 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 00:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.42]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990530145232.YFNA18449.fep1@ip42.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 16:52:32 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 16:52:32 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37564fdb.4863553@post12.tele.dk> References: <376414cf.10420594@post12.tele.dk> <375101CC.60E9745F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <375101CC.60E9745F@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id AAA11332 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 May 1999 11:15:56 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> My problem is that I simply cannot understand what "correct procedure" >> (or L74A3) means if you are allowed to deviate from it. > >What's the problem? In some cases, deviations from correct >procedure go unpunished. Yes, that is what I have been trying to say all the time. That is no problem. The problem is when you and Grattan seem to say that deviations from correct procedure are _allowed_. (If I have misunderstood the two of you in that respect, then I have no problem at all.) "Allowed" is not the same as "not penalized". >> IMO "correct procedure" is (and must be) the set of actions that you >> are allowed to take; any other action is an irregularity, and thus not >> allowed (regardless of whether or not there is a penalty for doing >> it). > >Why ? If "correct procedure" is not the (complete) set of actions that you are allowed to take, then what does those words mean? >Why can you not simply allow for the fact that some >irregularities go unpunished ? I can and I do. (We seem to have some trouble communicating: my impression is that you are the one who has been having problems allowing for that!) I am not concerned with penalties at all here. I am only concerned with questions of the type "Director, may I do this?" and whether the answer is yes or no. I want to be able to answer such questions correctly. It seems to me that if the words "correct procedure" is to have any meaning at all, then the answer must be "yes" for actions that are "correct procedure" according to the laws and "no" for actions that are deviations from "correct procedure" - i.e., irregularities. Irregularities without penalties are quite common: if a players asks "Director, may I put down dummy like this?" when he has laid out dummy horizontally across the table instead of "in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer" (L41D), then the answer is "No, you are not allowed to do that". But that does not mean that I penalize players who do it; I do not even penalize him when he does it again, and thus also violates L72B2. It is not correct procedure; it is an irregularity; it is not allowed; it is not penalized; players who want to follow the rules know that they are not allowed to do it; other players do it. No problem. >Whether or not L72B2 is valid on "unpunished >irregularities", making them "allowed irregularities" is >another question, and one which I have answered for myself, >but I agree that this is not without possible doubt. What I am trying to say is that "allowed" is not the same as "not penalized". Actions can be "not allowed" and "not penalized" at the same time. If we have a lawyer present, I would expect that we could get a confirmation of my suspicion that this is a normal and recognized fact also in real law. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 04:19:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 04:19:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11856 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 04:19:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxye2-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA15619; Sun, 30 May 1999 14:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990530141658.00852d60@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 14:16:58 -0400 To: "Grattan" , "bridge-laws" From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Clear enough In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:13 AM 5/30/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > ++++ If partner can recall previous psychics in the > same situation - e.g." from time to time he likes to psyche > a Spade overcall over a natural 1C or 1D opener, so this > One Spade might not be genuine" Isn't this just bridge? If I sit down against a pair of strangers and one of them overcalls my 1 minor opening with 1S, I know that it might be a psyche. Is there anything strange about this? How does the fact that his partner also knows about the possibility change the situation? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 06:40:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 06:40:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.sdca.home.com [24.0.3.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12245 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 06:40:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.com ([24.0.41.239]) by mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19990530204041.OWLY11386.mail.rdc1.sdca.home.com@home.com> for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 13:40:41 -0700 Message-ID: <3751A376.B01D8598@home.com> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 13:45:42 -0700 From: Jan Kamras Organization: @Home Network X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-AtHome0402 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: Good news/Bad news Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The good: I'll be away and unable read/post for a while. The bad: I'll be back! Have fun Jan From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 07:17:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 07:17:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from deimos.worldonline.nl (deimos.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.136]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA12278 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 07:17:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp207-147.worldonline.nl [195.241.207.147]) by deimos.worldonline.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA19355; Sun, 30 May 1999 23:17:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007501bea95d$ce0a8080$abc9f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "wayne" , "BLML Group" Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 00:59:47 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In Lille we have decided that in this case the TD should look in the faced down card before giving the instruction to take it back. To avoid using unauthorized information by LHO in case he has to lead and declarer allows him to lead what he wants or forbids him to lead partner's suit. That is why the TD's in Holland got this instruction. ton -----Original Message----- From: wayne To: BLML Group Date: Friday, May 28, 1999 2:47 PM Subject: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn >A proper face down opening lead is made simultaneously with a face up >opening lead out of turn. > >L58A Simultaneous plays to another players legal play are deemed >subsequent. > >L41A Face down opening lead is a legal play. > >Do we therefore face opening lead and partner's OOT lead is a major >penalty card and either played to first trick (if legal) or L50 applies? > >Or is there more to this? > >Wayne > > >Wayne > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 07:52:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 07:52:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA12330 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 07:51:52 +1000 (EST) 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 SAA15921 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 18:05:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990530175244.0068c21c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 17:52:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow In-Reply-To: <005701bea91f$dbabc3e0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:36 PM 5/28/99 +0300, Sergey wrote: >I think play against teammates is not subject of Low 40b. >L40 says "an opposing pair:" not "the opposing pair:" >I understand it as "special partnership understanding may be known for any >opponents". >Maybe is it my bad English? >But in my first question "is it legal to use club_level_knowledge in TD|AC >ruling?" I think about one other aspect. > >LOW 40B >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. > >Suppose, an action in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring >organisation is "natural" but in accordance with the lub_level_knowledge is >"artifical". >My question is: TD (when he wants to apply L40C) designates this action as >"failure to explain the full meaning" at first in accordance with the >regulations of the sponsoring organisation. If a regulations present then >failure to explain is. And only if there are no the regulations of the >sponsoring organisation TD analysis club_level_knowledge and "may a opposing >pair be reasonably expected to understand meaning of the action". Not >otherwise. Is it true? L40B could have been written as: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." The added clause creates an odd-seeming exception; it says that you must follow the SO's disclosure rules *unless* "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning". When they may be so expected, the law specifically protects the player from being considered to have committed an infraction if he transgresses whatever the SO's disclosure rules might be. In other words, L40B tells us that an SO cannot make it an infraction to fail to follow the proper procedure for disclosing your methods when your opponent knows (or, in the spirit of not requiring us to read minds, clearly should know) what your methods are in any case. As a consequence of this, you cannot be held to have given misinformation to an opponent who does not become consequently misinformed. I suspect that the exception was written into the law for the benefit of the bridge lawyers out there who will try to get something for nothing out of their opponents' failures to alert when they know perfectly well what their bids mean. 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 May 31 09:08:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 09:08:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand4.global.net.uk (sand4.global.net.uk [194.126.80.248]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12440 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 09:08:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from p23s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.36] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10oEgq-0000Wu-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 00:08:24 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L17D Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 21:05:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01beaad7$cc1e9740$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Date: Sunday, May 30, 1999 10:54 AM Subject: L17D >Yesterday something very amusing happened. > >A player calls me, telling she has only 12 cards. > >Nobody had 14, so I allow a substitute board to be put on >the table. >(it was barometer) > >However, one opponent was very severely handicapped, and had >already gone through quite a lot of trouble putting his >cards into the tray he uses to keep them. > >So I allowed him to keep the cards he had, put the second >board on top of the first, and instructed the other three >players to take their cards from the second board. Since >these had other backsides, the view of the table was quite >funny. Several other players who had by then finished play, >saw this and laughed, although everybody understood of >course. > >Along comes Jan Boets, co-TD and blml reader, who watches >the whole thing and comments, without looking it up : L17D. >Another one for Grattan's notebook. No this will not get into Grattans notebook. L17D "If a player who has_inadvertently_ etc" This was on the instruction of the TD. Nothing inadvertent about it. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 09:09:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 09:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12450 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 09:09:19 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (8044) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id dNVa002104; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:08:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 19:08:05 EDT Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow To: elandau@cais.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/30/99 5:53:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > In other words, L40B tells us that an SO cannot make it an infraction to > fail to follow the proper procedure for disclosing your methods when your > opponent knows (or, in the spirit of not requiring us to read minds, > clearly should know) what your methods are in any case. As a consequence > of this, you cannot be held to have given misinformation to an opponent who > does not become consequently misinformed. > > I suspect that the exception was written into the law for the benefit of > the bridge lawyers out there who will try to get something for nothing out > of their opponents' failures to alert when they know perfectly well what > their bids mean. > Amen. Kojak here From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 09:10:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 09:10:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA12475 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 09:10:00 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (8044) by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id tXDWa02574; Sun, 30 May 1999 19:09:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 19:09:01 EDT Subject: Re: Good news/Bad news To: jkamras@home.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 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/30/99 4:42:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jkamras@home.com writes: > The good: I'll be away and unable read/post for a while. > > The bad: I'll be back! Kojak here. You got it backwards!!!! From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 12:12:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:12:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp0.mindspring.com (smtp0.mindspring.com [207.69.200.30]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12855 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:12:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveigd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.13]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA29773 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 22:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990530221037.00749744@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 22:10:37 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Clear enough In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:13 AM 5/30/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > As for those of our colleagues who say "but > if this is so it rules out all psychics", what they need to > think about is whether in all probability what they call > psychics do not qualify for the description because of the >partnership experience surrounding their use. At present > our game does not cater for the 'psychic' that partner can > anticipate : there is an apparent view held by some (or >many?) that the laws should tolerate undisclosed, gross, >departures from system with partnership awareness, but > this is not what we have at present and I do not see how > the law on this could be changed and retain the first > priority of fairness for opponents. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > There may indeed be those who hold such views, although as far as I know they have not advocated such in this forum. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 12:50:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:50:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp3.mindspring.com (smtp3.mindspring.com [207.69.200.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12936 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:49:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-156-201.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.201]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA26519 for ; Sun, 30 May 1999 22:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3751F98C.2F2B55A5@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 19:53:00 -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: Clear enough References: <3.0.1.32.19990530221037.00749744@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: > > At 09:13 AM 5/30/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > > As for those of our colleagues who say "but > > if this is so it rules out all psychics", what they need to > > think about is whether in all probability what they call > > psychics do not qualify for the description because of the > >partnership experience surrounding their use. At present > > our game does not cater for the 'psychic' that partner can > > anticipate : there is an apparent view held by some (or > >many?) that the laws should tolerate undisclosed, gross, > >departures from system with partnership awareness, but > > this is not what we have at present and I do not see how > > the law on this could be changed and retain the first > > priority of fairness for opponents. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > > > There may indeed be those who hold such views, although as far as I know > they have not advocated such in this forum. > OK, I think I have. It depends, of course, on a matter of degree. As I understand Grattan's point, there is some stage where my psyches become agreements, and generally ACBL-illegal agreements. The question is where that line is drawn. I prefer not to draw it where others do; If I psych 1NT twice a year, I do not think that should mean we have an agreement, but I do submit that such tendencies must be disclosed (in the ACBL, only when asked -- this is not enough to require an alert, IMO.) However, Grattan's view -- and he will correct me if I am wrong, I'm sure -- is that when it rises to the level that disclosure is warranted, it is no longer legal. My apologies if I am misstating Grattan's position. This, I think, is absurd. I think the levels for disclosures is different, because I believe that if you psych on, say, 10% of suitable hands in suitable circumstances, that is not enough to change your bidding agreements. This, for me, means one 1NT psych a year, more or less. Woolsey and Robinson used psych 1NT overcalls once every four sessions or so; they alerted them because of their frequency, but IMO had a legal right to do this. It is still a gross violation of partnership style, unlike the K-S systemic psyches. Partner still has a better chance of reading it than the opponents, in all likelihood. It appears to me that the position Grattan has espoused would require you never to make the same psych twice with the same partner. If there is some other dividing line, I'd like to know what it is. I agree that at some point psyching becomes a partnership agreement -- if I always psyched 1NT on 7-9 points in 3rd seat white vs. red vs. artificial doublers, that would be an agreement. These are the hands I consider suitable for this particular deke, but I don't don't do it all the time, or nearly all the time, or most of the time in this situation. But I do it enough that partner might read it, although that has never happened. --JRM > Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 12:52:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA12959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:52:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA12953 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:52:50 +1000 (EST) 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 10oIBm-0007dD-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 02:52:35 +0000 Message-ID: <$ywuQsAhkfU3Ewxl@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 03:51:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L17D In-Reply-To: <375102F0.EFDE8C68@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <375102F0.EFDE8C68@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Yesterday something very amusing happened. > >A player calls me, telling she has only 12 cards. > >Nobody had 14, so I allow a substitute board to be put on >the table. >(it was barometer) > >However, one opponent was very severely handicapped, and had >already gone through quite a lot of trouble putting his >cards into the tray he uses to keep them. > >So I allowed him to keep the cards he had, put the second >board on top of the first, and instructed the other three >players to take their cards from the second board. Since >these had other backsides, the view of the table was quite >funny. Several other players who had by then finished play, >saw this and laughed, although everybody understood of >course. > >Along comes Jan Boets, co-TD and blml reader, who watches >the whole thing and comments, without looking it up : L17D. 6F resolves this I believe. If I have an exact copy It doesn't matter whether NS play with red cards and EW play with blue. It is IMO the same board. 17D applies only to inadvertency. 6F is deliberate. 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 May 31 21:16:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 21:16:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from alushta.NL.net (alushta.NL.net [193.78.240.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA13744 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 21:15:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <10751-13774>; Mon, 31 May 1999 13:15:40 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA06005 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 13:01:06 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Another hesitation Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 13:00:13 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F38F@xion.spase.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A0244688374902AE@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Kamras wrote: >> South cannot know which of the >> alternatives North is holding, hence whether he should double or bid 5C >> (5H). > >So Pass is not an LA in your opinion, by a hand that has already been >fully described?!? > >> And since South's bid cannot be demonstrably related to the hesitation, >> South is free in his action. Therefore, 5C stands, but so would a double. > >Totally wrong,imo. Double *is* demonstrably suggested over both Pass and >5x, since it covers whichever hand North's hesitation was based on. >I'm also not so comfortable in allowing the 5C bid (absent the UI it's >at best a 10% action, with it it's closer to 50% since Pass goes down to >10%!), but at least that one is close. Double isn't. Come to think of >it, a double on that hand is *blatant* use of UI. I still think that the hesitation does not specifically suggest a double. The hand North actually had proves that he didn't think of doubling but of taking out. So if we allow South to bid, we must allow any bid. However, I do agree that North's hesitation suggests action above pass (sorry, forgot about that option). South has told his story completely. If NS played a normal 3H limit raise, South could argue that he has some distribution to show. Now that 3H promises a distributional hand, that road is cut off to South. That means that the most logical action should be a pass and that any other action by South is forbidden. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 22:35:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 22:35:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13909 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 22:35:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-227.uunet.be [194.7.13.227]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA16002 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 14:35:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37515E53.8E4B21C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 17:50:43 +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: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? References: <376414cf.10420594@post12.tele.dk> <375101CC.60E9745F@village.uunet.be> <37564fdb.4863553@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > >What's the problem? In some cases, deviations from correct > >procedure go unpunished. > > Yes, that is what I have been trying to say all the time. That is no > problem. The problem is when you and Grattan seem to say that > deviations from correct procedure are _allowed_. (If I have > misunderstood the two of you in that respect, then I have no problem > at all.) > > "Allowed" is not the same as "not penalized". > > > >Why can you not simply allow for the fact that some > >irregularities go unpunished ? > > I can and I do. (We seem to have some trouble communicating: my > impression is that you are the one who has been having problems > allowing for that!) > OK, it seems we have made this one clear. We have some "unpunished irregularities". > I am not concerned with penalties at all here. I am only concerned > with questions of the type "Director, may I do this?" and whether the > answer is yes or no. I want to be able to answer such questions > correctly. > > It seems to me that if the words "correct procedure" is to have any > meaning at all, then the answer must be "yes" for actions that are > "correct procedure" according to the laws and "no" for actions that > are deviations from "correct procedure" - i.e., irregularities. > > Irregularities without penalties are quite common: if a players asks > "Director, may I put down dummy like this?" when he has laid out dummy > horizontally across the table instead of "in columns pointing > lengthwise towards declarer" (L41D), then the answer is "No, you are > not allowed to do that". But that does not mean that I penalize > players who do it; I do not even penalize him when he does it again, > and thus also violates L72B2. > > It is not correct procedure; it is an irregularity; it is not allowed; > it is not penalized; players who want to follow the rules know that > they are not allowed to do it; other players do it. No problem. > The two cases are not absolutely the same. What you describe above is not an "unpunished irregularity" it is a "so-small-irregularity-as-to-go -almost-always-unpunished". If some opponent objects to the bad laying of dummy, I will at first ask dummy to put them correctly. If he does it again, I will warn him. If he does it again, I am within my TD right to give PP's. So this is not an "unpunished irregularity" at all. While the playing out of turn cannot be punished, not even if I want to. It is an "unpunishable irregularity". > >Whether or not L72B2 is valid on "unpunished > >irregularities", making them "allowed irregularities" is > >another question, and one which I have answered for myself, > >but I agree that this is not without possible doubt. > > What I am trying to say is that "allowed" is not the same as "not > penalized". Actions can be "not allowed" and "not penalized" at the > same time. > > If we have a lawyer present, I would expect that we could get a > confirmation of my suspicion that this is a normal and recognized fact > also in real law. Well, I don't think so. If something carries a penalty, even if that penalty is never applied, it is not allowed. But when something no longer carries a penalty, then surely it must be called "allowed". I think some analogies may be drawn with drug possesion. This is never punished in Belgium, but that does not make it allowed. It is not punishable in Holland (and Denmark ?) so there it is allowed. I may be mistaken in my example, but I believe that you see what I mean. So the question remains. If the Laws stipulate clearly that something carries no penalty, does that make it allowed, even when it is a departure from "normal procedure" ? Just to put some oil on the fire : what is normal procedure anyway ? Might not one definition of that be : everything which is unpunishable by the Laws. Thus, POOT's can be normal procedure, but inadmissible doubles can never be. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 31 23:18:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA14066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:18:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.15.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA14061 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:18:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool03-194-7-13-39.uunet.be [194.7.13.39]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA19390 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 15:16:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37528859.46FF8D84@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:02:17 +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: Clear enough References: <3.0.1.32.19990530221037.00749744@pop.mindspring.com> <3751F98C.2F2B55A5@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John R. Mayne" wrote: > > > > > > There may indeed be those who hold such views, although as far as I know > > they have not advocated such in this forum. > > > > OK, I think I have. It depends, of course, on a matter of degree. > > As I understand Grattan's point, there is some stage where my psyches > become agreements, and generally ACBL-illegal agreements. The question > is where that line is drawn. > > I prefer not to draw it where others do; If I psych 1NT twice a year, I > do not think that should mean we have an agreement, but I do submit that > such tendencies must be disclosed (in the ACBL, only when asked -- this > is not enough to require an alert, IMO.) > > However, Grattan's view -- and he will correct me if I am wrong, I'm > sure -- is that when it rises to the level that disclosure is warranted, > it is no longer legal. My apologies if I am misstating Grattan's > position. > I think Grattan can answer for his own opinion, but let me give mine. Yes, this has to be divulged. Yes, this becomes (a small part) of system. If that means that the system is against the regulations, then the regulations prohibit psyching and this is contrary to L40. So the answer is, that all system regulations must be interpreted in such a way that psyches remain possible, even when partnership experience means something more has to be divulged than "well, everybody can psyche sometimes". > This, I think, is absurd. I think the levels for disclosures is > different, because I believe that if you psych on, say, 10% of suitable > hands in suitable circumstances, that is not enough to change your > bidding agreements. This, for me, means one 1NT psych a year, more or > less. Let's not get into frequency. I will psyche in a certain situation probably 80% of the times (third in hand with 0-3 points). That does mean the opponents are entitled to know this. It does not mean that when I open 1H in third hand, I am likely to have 0-3. I suspect that only 0.1% of the times when I open 1H in third seat, I will hold 0-3. > Woolsey and Robinson used psych 1NT overcalls once every four > sessions or so; they alerted them because of their frequency, but IMO > had a legal right to do this. > > It is still a gross violation of partnership style, unlike the K-S > systemic psyches. Partner still has a better chance of reading it than > the opponents, in all likelihood. It appears to me that the position > Grattan has espoused would require you never to make the same psych > twice with the same partner. If there is some other dividing line, I'd > like to know what it is. > > I agree that at some point psyching becomes a partnership agreement -- > if I always psyched 1NT on 7-9 points in 3rd seat white vs. red vs. > artificial doublers, that would be an agreement. These are the hands I > consider suitable for this particular deke, but I don't don't do it all > the time, or nearly all the time, or most of the time in this situation. > But I do it enough that partner might read it, although that has never > happened. > Nor to me ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html