From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 00:38:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA16559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:38:26 +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 AAA16554 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:38:16 +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 KAA00102 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 10:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA08752 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 10:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 10:38:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905311438.KAA08752@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: Play of a board against wrong pair Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "David Martin" > ########## 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." Yes, there is no question that the moving pairs are responsible for their own movement. The question is whether stationary pairs share the responsibility in any degree? > 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. ######## The prevailing interpretation is otherwise in North America, although I have never seen a formal regulation to that effect. But typically if an artificial score is needed, the moving pair would get avg- (at fault) and the stationary pair avg (partly at fault). But I have seen and read about only a few examples, so it wouldn't surprise me if some TD's had different ideas. I hope we all agree that the matter is one within the scope of SO regulation. Do WBF CoC typically contain any statement on the matter? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 01:39:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 01:39:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f33.hotmail.com [207.82.250.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA16718 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 01:39:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 87873 invoked by uid 0); 31 May 1999 15:38:29 -0000 Message-ID: <19990531153829.87872.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 31 May 1999 08:38:29 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 08:38:29 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: Tim Goodwin >To: "Grattan" , "bridge-laws" 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? > Well, if you're at the club I play at, and someone overcalls your 1m opening with 1S, the chance of it being a psych is zero plus delta. The delta is that there are maybe 4 people, who occasionally play there, that would psych anything; and there is one who, if it was the first round, might have her clubs sorted in with her spades and misbid (diabetic glaucoma - she gets the previous round's player to sort her hands for her rounds 2ff). This means two things, I think; that it isn't "just bridge", though it should be - I would be surprised if 5% of the players at any sectional or regional in southern Ontario, outside of Toronto (my guess is 10% there) would even dream that that bid could possibly be off the level (or at least any more likely than any other bid). Secondly, if you're playing here against two strangers, and hear the auction 1C-(1S), you have the belief that it may be a psych, but your opponents - and the people sitting your direction, playing the board before and after you - are secure in the knowledge that it isn't. What that means, I don't know - but I ask again; is an agreement never to use the Law 40A provision a "concealed partnership understanding" that needs to be disclosed? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 02:08:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:08:11 +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 CAA16993 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:08:01 +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 MAA00792 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA08947 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:07:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 12:07:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905311607.MAA08947@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 11:35 AM 5/26/99 PDT, Adam wrote: > >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 > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > 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. Yes, sounds right to me. > 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, Yes again. > and quite possibly illegal as a systemic psychic agreement. I think this agreement would be legal in the ACBL because it comes on opener's rebid, and "all constructive methods" are allowed. An agreement "shows either length/strength in spades or else a worthless holding in spades" seems constructive enough to qualify. Of course such an agreement would have to be alerted and explained if requested. This comment does not in any way imply that Adam and his partner have such an agreement. I'm only saying that the agreement itself would be a legal one to have. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 02:33:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:33:28 +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 CAA17030 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:33:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-156-3.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.3]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04982 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3752BA8C.BEABE76A@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 09:36:28 -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: Clear enough References: <3.0.1.32.19990530221037.00749744@pop.mindspring.com> <3751F98C.2F2B55A5@mindspring.com> <37528859.46FF8D84@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > [snip] I wrote the > > portions > > 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. This is clearly the wrong way to look at it. Suppose my opening 1H bid is either a standard 1H bid or an 8-card solid minor. Since the latter is a tiny percentage of the total bids, may I call it a psych? I think not. Suppose I open all hands of 0-3 with 1H 3rd seat, rather than 80%. Surely that is no longer a psych; it is the expected bid with the hand. At 80% it is still the marked bid with the hand. I believe that the only way to balance the right to psych vs. the K-S problem of misnaming a systemic bid a psych is to look at the frequency with which suitable hands are psyched. --JRM > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 02:42:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA17063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:42:18 +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 CAA17057 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:42:08 +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 MAA01108 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:42:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA09139 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 12:42:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199905311642.MAA09139@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wayne's Law & partner's unawareness. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott ++++ 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 ~ ++++ This seems a good way to look at things. Does the same principle apply to false cards on defense? What are pairs obliged to disclose? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 04:49:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA17315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 04:49:20 +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 EAA17310 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 04:49:13 +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 LAA09111 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <084401beab96$3c7b24e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <376414cf.10420594@post12.tele.dk> <375101CC.60E9745F@village.uunet.be> <37564fdb.4863553@post12.tele.dk> <37515E53.8E4B21C@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 11:48:50 -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: > 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" ? > Don't know about that, but many such actions are unethical or unsportsmanlike, and not to be practiced by ladies and gentlemen. Like not queuing up properly, as is the practice in the U. K and the U. S. A, and perhaps other places that I don't know about. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 05:08:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 05:08:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA17347 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 05:08:36 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10oXPZ-0007M0-00; Mon, 31 May 1999 21:07:49 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA168057667; Mon, 31 May 1999 21:07:48 +0200 Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 21:07:47 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> from "Grattan Endicott" at May 28, 1999 02:33:31 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > 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" Ok, what constitutes 'habit', 'recognizes' and 'knows'? The same psyche ten times in one year? 20 times? Certainly not the ACBL interpretation of 'once in a lifetime' ... >3. Disclosure is likely to involve writing it on the > convention card, Agree. > since it has become part of our > agreed partnership methods, Disagree. The simple fact that partner knows about some habit of mine constitutes knowledge, but not an *agreement*. Partner might well consider that particular psyche to be abhorent. > 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. Which agreement? (see above) [...] Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 05:49:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 05:49:46 +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 FAA17424 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 05:49:39 +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 MAA13103 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 12:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <086901beab9e$ad7ebfa0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19990531153829.87872.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 12:48:25 -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 Michael Farebrother wrote: > > I ask again; is an agreement never to > use the Law 40A provision a "concealed partnership understanding" that needs > to be disclosed? > It certainly is, and the sensible thing to do is to have what used to appear on the ACBL convention card: PSYCHICS (check one) Never Rare Occ. Freq. Describe:______________ *Controls______________ * Must Alert ############################ Of course this was before the ban on psychic controls. A popular control was a forcing 2NT response to an opening bid, following which opener's rebid revealed whether the opening was a psych or not. I believe Roth-Stone and Kaplan-Sheinwold both employed this practice. The anti-psych crowd on the ACBL Board of Directors not only got psychic controls outlawed, but had all reference to psychs removed from the cc, perhaps feeling that having it on the cc would encourage the practice. One fault with the cc disclosure was that "nevers" usually lied and checked "Rare" or "Occ." This was considered insurance against the possibility that an opponent or TD would think that some misbid was a psych. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 06:18:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:18:34 +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 GAA17498 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA13668 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 21:17:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 31 May 99 21:17 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Problem Ruling 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 The TD at our local club had to give a ruling the other day which caused some bad blood. He has asked me to solicit some opinions on it and I would be grateful for any replies. UK Based (so 30% LA threshold) NV-NV Dealer South Bidding P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied 2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. 4S-D*-P-5C P -P- D. (AP) East held 83,QT542,-,AKJTxx and made 5C*+1 opposite xx,AKxx,Txx,xxxx (opposition were 3262 opposite 6241 and led a diamond). East is moderately competent but the weakest player at the table, West is the best player. Any ideas what the ruling should be and how "borderline" the decision is? Thanks, Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 06:18:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:18:36 +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 GAA17497 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA13661 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 21:17:48 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 31 May 99 21:17 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. 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: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> 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. > 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 would *love* to write on my CC "Cue-bids, usually first or second round control but on rare occasions may be made with xx/xxx". Opponents will tend to assume that this is one of the rare occasions much more often than is actually the case and I'll get a bundle of MPs when they lead away from Kxxx etc. I am more comfortable with a general disclosure of "psyching frequency" but even this is likely to gain more for the disclosing pair than for the opponents. (As others have pointed out an established reputation as a psycher is worth many MPs). In reality there is a whole mass of information about partner (from temperament/mood to experience level and technical aptitude) which does not lend itself to exposure by CC. I will try and answer questions about these things if possible but consider psychic tendencies to be among the least of these issues. > 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. An awareness that partner may sometimes open with fewer than 8 hcp does not, IMO, constitute a systemic agreement to do so. > 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. > Why is it necessary to try and prohibit the psyche when it is much easier to apply restrictions to psyche protection and, post facto, adjust when a psyche is red-fielded? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 06:53:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:53:17 +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 GAA17595 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:53:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip13.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.13]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990531205257.EYGZ1342.fep2@ip13.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 22:52:57 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 22:52:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3755ebae.4951750@post12.tele.dk> References: <376414cf.10420594@post12.tele.dk> <375101CC.60E9745F@village.uunet.be> <37564fdb.4863553@post12.tele.dk> <37515E53.8E4B21C@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <37515E53.8E4B21C@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 GAA17596 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 May 1999 17:50:43 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >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". Yes. >While the playing out of turn cannot be punished, not even >if I want to. > >It is an "unpunishable irregularity". It is unpunishable (if you read L57C the way you and Grattan do - and since L57C is not the primary subject here, let us do that for the sake of argument). But if there is nothing wrong in doing it, then why call it an irregularity? >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 agree that an action which can clearly never under any circumstances be penalized should certainly be allowed (otherwise the laws have a problem). But if it is perfectly legal and proper to take that action (which is what I mean when I say "allowed"), then it must surely also deserve the term "correct procedure" instead of "an irregularity". A perfectly legal and proper action cannot be a "deviation from correct procedure". There is nothing irregular about an allowed action. As soon as we call something an irregularity we have already said that there is something wrong about it (it is then, by definition, something other than correct procedure). So I find it important that we and the laws distinguish very carefully between that which is allowed (correct procedure) and that which is not (irregularities). I know perfectly well that the laws are inconsistent in this respect - definitely in L25B, and by your and Grattan's interpretation also in L57C. It does not bother me much that a few individual laws are inconsistent. But it bothers me when BLML members whose opinions I respect talk of "allowed irregularities" - because IMO "allowed action" and "irregularity" are, by definition, the exact opposite of each other. >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" ? If it makes it allowed, then it _is_ "correct procedure". What else does "correct procedure" mean? (The word is "correct"; not "normal": departure from "normal" procedure in the sense of "usual" procedure happens all the time - a redouble of 7NT is not usual or normal, but it is correct 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. Fine. But if everything unpunishable is correct procedure, then an unpunishable action cannot also be an irregularity (a deviation from correct procedure). And now the good news: this will probably be my last attempt to explain what I'm talking about - this has gone on long enough. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 07:52:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:52:08 +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 HAA17673 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 07:52:00 +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 SAA07557 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 18:05:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990531175258.006e9b4c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 17:52:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Cue Bids In-Reply-To: <04d201bea954$c363d7c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027404@MAIL> <199905262330.TAA16692@primus.ac.net> <199905280539.BAA15681@primus.ac.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:50 PM 5/28/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Linda Trent wrote: > >> 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! To be fair to ZT, it's about zero tolerance for rudeness. ZT penalties are intended for, among others, anyone who *rudely* corrects an opponent in regard to alerts or announcements; whether or not they do so mistakenly has nothing to do with the matter. 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 Jun 1 08:55:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:55:30 +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 IAA17761 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:55:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd1s01a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.129.210] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10oaxa-0006Rb-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 23:55:11 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Problem Ruling Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01beabb9$4f732c00$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: Tim West-meads To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Monday, May 31, 1999 9:50 PM Subject: Problem Ruling >The TD at our local club had to give a ruling the other day which caused >some bad blood. He has asked me to solicit some opinions on it and I would >be grateful for any replies. > >UK Based (so 30% LA threshold) > >NV-NV Dealer South > >Bidding > >P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied >2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. >4S-D*-P-5C >P -P- D. (AP) > >East held 83,QT542,-,AKJTxx and made 5C*+1 opposite xx,AKxx,Txx,xxxx >(opposition were 3262 opposite 6241 and led a diamond). East is >moderately competent but the weakest player at the table, West is the best >player. I consider that Pass is LA. and rule 4S*= (It looks as though there are 2 Hearts and a Club to lose.) I could conceive of a different auction where 4S* would not be allowed to play, If E/W had found their 2 suited fit for example, but not this one.) > >Any ideas what the ruling should be and how "borderline" the decision is? I don't think its even close. The hesitant double with the shake of the head suggests to me, "you have pushed them there, now what am I supposed to do?" It does not shout of defensive tricks, and suggests to East that to bid may be more succesful than to pass. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 09:28:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:28:08 +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 JAA17813 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:27:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10obTA-00052Q-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 01:27:48 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990601012319.007bc790@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 01:23:19 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. In-Reply-To: References: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:07 31-05-99 +0200, you wrote: >Grattan wrote: >> 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" > >Ok, what constitutes 'habit', >'recognizes' and 'knows'? >The same psyche ten times in one year? >20 times? >Certainly not the ACBL interpretation of >'once in a lifetime' ... > >>3. Disclosure is likely to involve writing it on the >> convention card, > >Agree. > >> since it has become part of our >> agreed partnership methods, > >Disagree. The simple fact that partner disagree. It is now an implicit agreement. These should be (but wont often alas) be disclosed. regards, anton >knows about some habit of mine constitutes >knowledge, but not an *agreement*. >Partner might >well consider that particular psyche >to be abhorent. > > >> 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. > >Which agreement? (see above) > >[...] > > >Thomas > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 09:36:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:36:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA17842 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:36:46 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (8043) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fVWIa08612; Mon, 31 May 1999 19:35:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <55f2a59e.248476c3@aol.com> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 19:35:31 EDT Subject: Re: Problem Ruling To: eajewm@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 5/31/99 6:57:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, eajewm@globalnet.co.uk writes: > I don't think its even close. > The hesitant double with the shake of the head > suggests to me, "you have pushed them there, now what am I supposed to do?" > It does not shout of defensive tricks, and suggests to East that to bid may > be more > succesful than to pass. > > Anne > > > Kojak Here. AMEN. I like your style. Let's keep the game honest.!!!!!! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 10:18:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:18:49 +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 KAA18006 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:18:40 +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 10ocGG-000P00-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:18:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 01:17:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Problem Ruling In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes snip >UK Based (so 30% LA threshold) > >NV-NV Dealer South > >Bidding > >P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied >2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. >4S-D*-P-5C >P -P- D. (AP) IMO if it had been a fast happy double then East would have passed. I rule it back to 4Sx. I don't think it's even borderline. I use this concept of "fast happy" to decide if something is an LA. I don't know whether other TDs do the same. Cheers John > >East held 83,QT542,-,AKJTxx and made 5C*+1 opposite xx,AKxx,Txx,xxxx >(opposition were 3262 opposite 6241 and led a diamond). East is >moderately competent but the weakest player at the table, West is the best >player. > >Any ideas what the ruling should be and how "borderline" the decision is? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 10:41:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA18150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:41:51 +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 KAA18144 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 10:41:41 +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 UAA04360 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 20:41:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA10098 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 31 May 1999 20:41:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 20:41:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906010041.UAA10098@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Swiss Teams Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > 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. RR has some social advantages and solves certain problems, but if the teams are of greatly disparate standard, it may not be desirable. Matches between the top and bottom teams will not be enjoyable for either. A Swiss doesn't completely avoid the situation, but it tends to reduce it. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 11:38:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA18485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:38:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA18480 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:38:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from idt.net (ppp-19.ts-2.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.67]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA16701; Mon, 31 May 1999 21:38:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37533931.6010C300@idt.net> Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 18:36:49 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Swiss Teams References: <199906010041.UAA10098@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm coming late to this discussion, but if you want to avoid matches between strong and weak teams, the solution is to allow playbacks. I have conceived of a "King-of-the-Hill" Swiss, that is appropriate for small fields. Seed the field (you pick the seeding method) from top to bottom. Then have #1 play #2, #3 play #4, etc. After each round, the field is reseeded according to who won and who lost, the losing team in the 1 vs 2 match dropping down to table two, the winning team from table 2 moving up to table 1. Winner at the end is NOT the team with the best won-lost record, but the team seeded #1 at after the last match. I know that many people don't like certain features of this event, but I think it has some merit. For one thing, it accomplishes play among equals, for the most part, yet in a small field any team has the opportunity to overcome it's low initial seeding. I think the best team will usually be the winner, but the crucial results with be in the penultimate and last rounds, which seems to be the way it SHOULD be. At any rate, a suggestion :) Irv Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > 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. > > RR has some social advantages and solves certain problems, but if the > teams are of greatly disparate standard, it may not be desirable. > Matches between the top and bottom teams will not be enjoyable for either. > A Swiss doesn't completely avoid the situation, but it tends to reduce it. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 12:52:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:52:19 +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 MAA18786 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:52:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei1n.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.55]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA19603 for ; Mon, 31 May 1999 22:52:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990531224959.0073ae9c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 22:49:59 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Problem Ruling In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:17 PM 5/31/99 BST, you wrote: >Any ideas what the ruling should be and how "borderline" the decision is? > Mark me down for one "result stands" and one "fairly obvious". It would, I think, be a much harder problem in ACBL - land, but under the eminently more reasonable standard of 30%, I think it is quite difficult to call passing the double a LA. It _could_ be right, of course, but IMO the vast majority of players would decide that it was too risky to do so. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 14:46:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA19277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:46:45 +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 OAA19271 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:46:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem76.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.204] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10ogRM-000717-00; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 05:46:17 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 05:44:53 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never!" - Hans Richter at rehearsal. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr --------- > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: Bridge Laws List > Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? > Date: 30 May 1999 15:52 > ... > > > 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. > ++++ Well, suppose you try telling the player - "The laws say that you are not allowed to play out of turn before your partner has played, but the laws add that if you do so after declarer has played from both hands you will not be punished for doing so, whether you do so deliberately or not.. This is, therefore, a concession of which you may take advantage whether you act deliberately or inadvertently". [ If it happens the Director is in an 84A situation.] ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 15:33:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA19375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:33:55 +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 PAA19370 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:33:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem81.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.81] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10ohB7-0007fo-00; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:33:33 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "John R. Mayne" Cc: Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:29:44 +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: John R. Mayne > To: > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Clear enough > Date: 31 May 1999 03:53 > > 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. ++++++ My statement was, I hope, one of principle in this regard. Whether the action is legal at the level of an implicit, or explicit, agreement is a question relating not to the primary laws but to the regulation under those laws (40D). I interpret the point at which the implicit agreement arises in terms of partner's awareness that it may be a psyche out of prior partnership experience. The diagnosis of the existence of that awareness is in the hands of Directors, ACs, and regulating authorities; personally I do not think a single previous psychic is evidence enough generally but it may be, for a time at least, in some instances of a psychic that has caused an significant impression either because of its remarkable nature or because of the attention it has received. I have seen two messages in this thread that appear to claim that there is no partnership agreement when partner is aware of a habitual violation. Law 75B says it may be deemed so and regulating authorities have mostly set the point at which the realization should be considered a partnership understanding requiring disclosure. ~ Grattan ~ ++++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 16:11:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA19562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:11:22 +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 QAA19557 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:11:15 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com (92) by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fCLVa02628; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4916b2ae.2484d337@aol.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:09:59 EDT Subject: Re: Clear enough To: hermes@dodona.softnet.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 Grattan states: << I have seen two messages in this thread that appear to claim that there is no partnership agreement when partner is aware of a habitual violation >> When this comes before an AC, I tell the players that before this occurrence you had no agreement (benefit of the doubt) but after it you definitely have an agreement about the kind of psyche partner may make and you must be aware of your responsibilities henceforth. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 17:42:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:42:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.pl (home.pl [195.205.230.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA19880 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:41:57 +1000 (EST) From: jfr@post.pl Message-Id: <199906010741.RAA19880@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from home.pl (HELO localhost) (195.205.230.32) by home.pl with SMTP; 1 Jun 1999 07:42:18 -0000 Subject: RE: Problem Ruling Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mime-version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:42 +0100 X-mailer: Netbula AnyEMail(TM) 1.5 trial Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads: >The TD at our local club had to give a ruling the other day which >caused some bad blood. He has asked me to solicit some opinions on it >and I would be grateful for any replies. > >UK Based (so 30% LA threshold) > >NV-NV Dealer South > >Bidding > >P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied >2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. >4S-D*-P-5C >P -P- D. (AP) > >East held 83,QT542,-,AKJTxx and made 5C*+1 opposite xx,AKxx,Txx,xxxx >(opposition were 3262 opposite 6241 and led a diamond). East is >moderately competent but the weakest player at the table, West is the >best player. > >Any ideas what the ruling should be and how "borderline" the decision >is? > >Thanks, > >Tim West-Meads > IMO from the E's point of view: partner passed first round and has the support for my long clubs. I have no defensive tricks. So I must bid on. 5C is a obvious bid. Result stands. Jan Romanski From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 19:04:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:04:58 +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 TAA20174 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:04:48 +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 LAA18798; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:04:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199906010904.LAA18798@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "Jan Peter Pals" Organization: FRW-UvA To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:05:35 +0200 Subject: Re: Problem Ruling Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: "Anne Jones" X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <01beabb9$4f732c00$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > >The TD at our local club had to give a ruling the other day which caused > >some bad blood. He has asked me to solicit some opinions on it and I would > >be grateful for any replies. > > > >UK Based (so 30% LA threshold) > > > >NV-NV Dealer South > > > >Bidding > > > >P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied > >2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. > >4S-D*-P-5C > >P -P- D. (AP) > > > >East held 83,QT542,-,AKJTxx and made 5C*+1 opposite xx,AKxx,Txx,xxxx > >(opposition were 3262 opposite 6241 and led a diamond). East is > >moderately competent but the weakest player at the table, West is the best > >player. Anne Jones wrote: > I consider that Pass is LA. and rule 4S*= (It looks as though there are > 2 Hearts and a Club to lose.) I suppose West leads the heart ace (or king). IMO even a 'moderately competent' East player would now drop the heart queen, requesting a diamond switch. So 4S* is two down on two diamond ruffs. > I could conceive of a different auction where 4S* would not be allowed to > play, > If E/W had found their 2 suited fit for example, but not this one.) > > > >Any ideas what the ruling should be and how "borderline" the decision is? > > I don't think its even close. > The hesitant double with the shake of the head > suggests to me, "you have pushed them there, now what am I supposed to do?" > It does not shout of defensive tricks, and suggests to East that to bid may > be more > succesful than to pass. I agree. JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 19:17:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA20212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from gw-nl3.philips.com (gw-nl3.philips.com [192.68.44.35]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA20206 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:17:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl3.philips.com with ESMTP id LAA10702 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:17:27 +0200 (MEST) (envelope-from holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com) Received: from smtprelay-eur1.philips.com(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl3.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma010696; Tue, 1 Jun 99 11:17:27 +0200 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id LAA03117 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:17:26 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from brisbane.ehv.sc.philips.com (brisbane.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.240]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id LAA04880 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:17:25 +0200 (METDST) From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by brisbane.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/) id LAA03252 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:17:24 +0200 (METDST) Message-Id: <199906010917.LAA03252@brisbane.ehv.sc.philips.com> Subject: Re: Problem Ruling To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:17:23 METDST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Romanski wrote: > > P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied > > 2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. > > 4S-D*- P-5C > > P -P- D-(AP) > IMO from the E's point of view: partner passed first > round and has the support for my long clubs. I have no > defensive tricks. So I must bid on. 5C is a obvious bid. > Result stands. I disagree; you have what you promised, i.e. a hand with clubs and playing tricks. You have only six clubs and you have the ace, so you have a potential defensive trick. I would agree with you if partner had not douibled, but partners double should show a hand with which he is fairly sure of beating four spades, e.g. QJx xx KQJt Qxxx. With the hand that partner had (xx AKxx txx xxxx) the double is ridiculous; no strength at all in both the suits bid by the opponents (spades and diamonds) and a four card suit in what may well be partners second suit. By shaking his head he showed that he had the 'wrong' hand for the double and that you should bid five clubs. That is NOT the way to play bridge! Regards. Con Holzscherer Systems Laboratory Eindhoven, Philips Semiconductors B.V. Phone: +31-40-27 22150 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 20:21:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:21:16 +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 UAA20578 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from p39s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.58] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10olfD-0000Zr-00; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:20:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002c01beac18$169c7ee0$3a8a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:11:44 +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: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 01 June 1999 07:42 Subject: Re: Clear enough >Grattan states: > ><< I have seen two messages in this thread that > appear to claim that there is no partnership agreement > when partner is aware of a habitual violation >> > >When this comes before an AC, I tell the players that before this occurrence >you had no agreement (benefit of the doubt) but after it you definitely have >an agreement about the kind of psyche partner may make and you must be aware >of your responsibilities henceforth. > >Karen > +++++ Hi Karen! I do hope you are not of the school which says that one swallow maketh a summer, and one psychic maketh a habit. +++ Grattan +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 20:54:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:54:14 +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 UAA20705 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:54:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd1s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.210] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10omB9-00000h-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:53:56 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Problem Ruling Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:57:59 +0100 Message-ID: <01beac1d$9c921140$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 Yes. I did write something like this but sent it to TWM by accident. it read:- After thoughts:- I am certainly ruling this back to 4S*. Now if E/W were able to convince me that the defence would be AH, Dx- ruff, Hx to HK, Dx - ruff.I would award a split score:- Most favourable result likely to N/S is 4S*= Most unfavourable result probable is E/W= 4S* - 2 N/S +590 E/W +300 Anne To those who advocate that bidding 5C is automatic because partner is a passed hand. Correct defence makes East hand worth 3 tricks, and why can West not hold AKx xx xxx xxxxx [because the double would be in tempo!] -----Original Message----- From: Jan Peter Pals To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Anne Jones Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 10:41 AM Subject: Re: Problem Ruling >Tim West-meads wrote: >> >> >The TD at our local club had to give a ruling the other day which caused >> >some bad blood. He has asked me to solicit some opinions on it and I would >> >be grateful for any replies. >> > >> >UK Based (so 30% LA threshold) >> > >> >NV-NV Dealer South >> > >> >Bidding >> > >> >P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied >> >2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. >> >4S-D*-P-5C >> >P -P- D. (AP) >> > >> >East held 83,QT542,-,AKJTxx and made 5C*+1 opposite xx,AKxx,Txx,xxxx >> >(opposition were 3262 opposite 6241 and led a diamond). East is >> >moderately competent but the weakest player at the table, West is the best >> >player. > >Anne Jones wrote: > >> I consider that Pass is LA. and rule 4S*= (It looks as though there are >> 2 Hearts and a Club to lose.) > >I suppose West leads the heart ace (or king). >IMO even a 'moderately competent' East player would now drop the >heart queen, requesting a diamond switch. So 4S* is two down on >two diamond ruffs. > >> I could conceive of a different auction where 4S* would not be allowed to >> play, >> If E/W had found their 2 suited fit for example, but not this one.) >> > >> >Any ideas what the ruling should be and how "borderline" the decision is? >> >> I don't think its even close. >> The hesitant double with the shake of the head >> suggests to me, "you have pushed them there, now what am I supposed to do?" >> It does not shout of defensive tricks, and suggests to East that to bid may >> be more >> succesful than to pass. > >I agree. > >JP > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 21:20:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA20802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:20:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20797 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:20:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (p14-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.14]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA28531 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:20:44 +1200 Message-ID: <001a01beac20$08d59aa0$0e6f12ce@default> From: "J Atkinson" To: Subject: Re: Problem Ruling Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:15:18 +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 With this type of problem I always ask myself if the double had been made decisively would the partner have moved?. I think it is clear that 5C would rarely be bid, that it is demonstrably suggested by the actions of the doubler and therefore revert to 4S going 2 light. Julie Atkinson -----Original Message----- From: jfr@post.pl To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tuesday, 1 June 1999 20:03 Subject: RE: Problem Ruling >Tim West-meads: >>The TD at our local club had to give a ruling the other day which >>caused some bad blood. He has asked me to solicit some opinions on it >>and I would be grateful for any replies. >> >>UK Based (so 30% LA threshold) >> >>NV-NV Dealer South >> >>Bidding >> >>P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied >>2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. >>4S-D*-P-5C >>P -P- D. (AP) >> >>East held 83,QT542,-,AKJTxx and made 5C*+1 opposite xx,AKxx,Txx,xxxx >>(opposition were 3262 opposite 6241 and led a diamond). East is >>moderately competent but the weakest player at the table, West is the >>best player. >> >>Any ideas what the ruling should be and how "borderline" the decision >is? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Tim West-Meads >> > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 22:10:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:10:46 +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 WAA21003 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:10:38 +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 IAA03869 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:23:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 08:11:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <072e01beaa6e$2bc667a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:29 AM 5/30/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >(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. While Marv's analysis is generally pretty much on target, I can't buy this one. That a player will be more conservative with intervention against opponents whose methods are atypically geared to extracting penalties from intervening opponents is obvious common sense and must fall into the category of "general knowledge and experience". As such it cannot, by itself, create a "special partnership agreement", as would, for example varying one's conventional agreements. 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 Jun 1 22:18:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:18:46 +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 WAA21049 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-157.uunet.be [194.7.146.157]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09827 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:18:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3753C649.605397B1@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 13:38:49 +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> <37515E53.8E4B21C@village.uunet.be> <3755ebae.4951750@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, 30 May 1999 17:50:43 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >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". > > Yes. > > >While the playing out of turn cannot be punished, not even > >if I want to. > > > >It is an "unpunishable irregularity". > > It is unpunishable (if you read L57C the way you and Grattan do - and > since L57C is not the primary subject here, let us do that for the > sake of argument). > > But if there is nothing wrong in doing it, then why call it an > irregularity? > You're the one that insists on calling it an irregularity. I call it an (irregularity). You are saying that irregularities must be punish(ed)(able). We're just mincing words here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 22:18:45 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:18:45 +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 WAA21050 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:18:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-146-157.uunet.be [194.7.146.157]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA09841 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:18:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3753C96D.9D22334B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 13:52:13 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Clear enough References: <3.0.1.32.19990530221037.00749744@pop.mindspring.com> <3751F98C.2F2B55A5@mindspring.com> <37528859.46FF8D84@village.uunet.be> <3752BA8C.BEABE76A@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John R. Mayne" wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > [snip] > > I wrote the > > portions > > > > 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. > > This is clearly the wrong way to look at it. Suppose my opening 1H bid > is either a standard 1H bid or an 8-card solid minor. Since the latter > is a tiny percentage of the total bids, may I call it a psych? I think > not. > > Suppose I open all hands of 0-3 with 1H 3rd seat, rather than 80%. > Surely that is no longer a psych; it is the expected bid with the hand. > > At 80% it is still the marked bid with the hand. > I deliberately put the figure of 80% so high as to make it an almost certainty. I agree with you that 80% makes it the right bid with the given cards. But that does not mean that the 1H bid has this special meaning as systemic. 0-3 in third seat is a very rare occurrence, far rarer than an 8-card minor. I know, I look out for them ! And I have not built into my system anything (not even Drury !) which might allow us to find out about this particular psyche. That means that even if partner would explain my third hand opening as "99.9% certain a five card, in 0.1% of the cases 0-3 points and less hearts than spades", that this is completely different to his explanation of our 2Cl opening : "weak-2 in diamonds or acol-2 in major or 9 tricks in minor or NT 20-21 or NT 26-27", all of which have different developments after partner's likely response of 2Di. That is why I say that the frequency of the meaning should be small, not necessarily the frequency with which one does the given action with the given cards. That may well be 100%. > I believe that the only way to balance the right to psych vs. the K-S > problem of misnaming a systemic bid a psych is to look at the frequency > with which suitable hands are psyched. > No the frequency with which a certain bid is done on a particular type of hand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 22:44:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:44:26 +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 WAA21177 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:44:15 +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 IAA12234 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990601084519.006f0a90@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 08:45:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:17 PM 5/31/99 BST, twm wrote: >I would *love* to write on my CC "Cue-bids, usually first or second round >control but on rare occasions may be made with xx/xxx". Opponents will >tend to assume that this is one of the rare occasions much more often than >is actually the case and I'll get a bundle of MPs when they lead away >from Kxxx etc. I can vouch for this effect. Decades ago, when it was still legal in the ACBL, I used to play a system that incorporated Roth-Stone-style "controlled psychs" (at the time, the ACBL CC had a checkbox for "controlled psyches", and alerts were relatively new). One night at a local club the TD instructed my partner and me to alert the opponents every time we opened the bidding that we might hold a controlled psych (2-5 HCP with at least Qxx in the bid suit). When the cries of "but I thought he was psyching" died down, I had one of the two 80%+ matchpoint sessions of my bridge-playing career. 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 Jun 1 22:44:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:44:40 +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 WAA21181 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from p10s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.17] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10onth-0007zi-00; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:44:01 +0100 Message-ID: <000901beac2c$143c7ec0$118a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:04:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Date: 31 May 1999 22:14 Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? >On Sun, 30 May 1999 17:50:43 +0200, Herman De Wael > wrote:". >> > > >It does not bother me much that a few individual laws are >inconsistent. But it bothers me when BLML members whose opinions I >respect talk of "allowed irregularities" - because IMO "allowed >action" and "irregularity" are, by definition, the exact opposite of >each other. > +++++ Leaving aside tortuous phrases which tend to creep into this subject, my position is this: if the laws go out of their way to give licence for something in stated circumstances then doing it, in those circumstances, is not an irregularity. Any law can have its exceptions and purposefully established exceptions should not be considered inconsistencies. It does stand out a mile that the Kaplan touch is too light for minds that need an explicit exclusion statement in order to be persuaded of it. It is to assist a universal common understanding of the laws that I advocate greater detail and precision in the wording, but this runs counter to the advantages that Edgar saw in writing his more flexible texts. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 22:44:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:44:27 +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 WAA21175 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:44:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from p10s10a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.138.17] helo=pacific) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10ontf-0007zi-00; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:43:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000801beac2c$135aaa40$118a93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 12:36:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: 31 May 1999 21:42 Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. >In-Reply-To: <004f01bea90f$650543c0$688393c3@pacific> >Grattan Endicott> > >> +++++ Er, just a minute -------- \x/ ----------- > > Tim asked:. >Why is it necessary to try and prohibit the psyche when it is much easier >to apply restrictions to psyche protection and, post facto, adjust when a >psyche is red-fielded? > ++++ The right of opponents to know what understandings you have (and be in a position to use the knowledge in the auction and or the play) has priority over prevention of 'psyche protection', which is also essential. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 1 23:11:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:11:32 +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 XAA21374 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:11:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.gnnettest.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (4563 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:11:12 -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 ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:10:33 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D00855302762B@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:10:30 -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 ---------- From: Eric Landau [SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 8:12 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) At 12:29 AM 5/30/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >>(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. >While Marv's analysis is generally pretty much on target, I can't buy this >one. That a player will be more conservative with intervention against >opponents whose methods are atypically geared to extracting penalties from >intervening opponents is obvious common sense and must fall into the >category of "general knowledge and experience". As such it cannot, by >itself, create a "special partnership agreement", as would, for example >varying one's conventional agreements. I'm going to be difficult and disagree with both Marvin and Eric. (Note, I agree with Marvin's conclusions but disagree with his justification for it) I believe that the crux of the entire "Chicken and the Egg" problem that we are discussing is the staged nature of the bidding process. The bidding portion of the game of bridge consists of a series of specific steps. At each step in the bidding process, each player must make a choice about a specific meaning to assign to his bids. During later stages of the bidding process, each player is assumed to have full information about precisely what a specific bid is supposed to show. During later stages in the bidding process, a player's choice of the specific meaning to assign to a bid can be conditional on the definition of an earlier bid. As a classic example, I can chose that a double of a 10-12 HCP 1N opening is for penalty, but that a double of a 16-18 HCP 1N opening shows a single suited hand. It is perfectly reasonable for a player to anticipate his opponent's potential defensive Response to whatever bidding style he adopts. My choice of whether or not to adopt A strong club system should certainly be based on the trade off between the added Accuracy I expect on my limited openings and the loss of accuracy I expect when Opening 1C. A major part of this loss of accuracy will be based on how aggressively I believe the opponent's will overcall my strong club openings. I would argue that full disclosure requires that players must assign specific meanings to Their bids, and follow those specific definitions regardless of what defenses the opponent's Might chose to adopt. Once I decide to preempt on garbage, I need to live with this decision and continue to preempt on garbage regardless of the fact that I'm playing against a pair who likes to penalty double. I agree with the conclusions that Marvin reached. However, I think that his focus on Implicit partnership agreements versus conventions and the like is a distraction from the primary point at hand. For example, I'm not sure whether Eric disagrees with the point of Law that Marvin is making or merely his justification for it. I believe that if one simply models the bidding process as a staged decision tree, it becomes Very easy to determine where the chicken and egg problem arises. I would argue that Regardless of whether a player is choosing to tighten up his style or adopting a new convention, Deciding to change a the precise definition of a bid predicated on the specific defense that The opposing pair will adopt is the crux of the entire problem. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 00:38:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:38:58 +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 AAA24111 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:38:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA27281 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 15:38:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 1 Jun 99 15:38 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. 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: <000801beac2c$135aaa40$118a93c3@pacific> Grattan wrote: > > Tim asked:. > >Why is it necessary to try and prohibit the psyche when it is much > easier >to apply restrictions to psyche protection and, post facto, > adjust when a >psyche is red-fielded? > > > ++++ The right of opponents to know what understandings > you have (and be in a position to use the knowledge in the > auction and or the play) has priority over prevention of > 'psyche protection', which is also essential. > ~ Grattan ~ > ++++ I believe that opponents have right to ask (and be informed) about all understandings that my partner or I might use in our judgements but not that they are entitled to information that partner or I are prohibited from using by law (absent specific infractions). As an analogy if I know that partner never false-cards in defence oppos too are entitled to that information, if I know that he never false cards as declarer then I feel they are not entitled to that knowledge. To me there is a clear difference between an understanding (ie mutually recognised knowledge that is used in an attempt to defeat opponents) and mere knowledge. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 02:35:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:35:58 +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 CAA24741 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:35:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from p81s04a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.132.130] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10orVm-0006eA-00; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:35:35 +0100 Message-ID: <002201beac4c$6c7743c0$a78393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Willey" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:32:16 +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: 01 June 1999 14:51 Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) >---------- >From: Eric Landau [SMTP:elandau@cais.com] >Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 8:12 AM >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 02:43:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:43:26 +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 CAA24774 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:42:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from p20s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.33] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10orcR-0006ho-00; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:42:27 +0100 Message-ID: <000401beac4d$624b16a0$218b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 17:39:16 +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: 01 June 1999 16:12 Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. > ----- \x/ --------- > >I believe that opponents have right to ask (and be informed) about all >understandings that my partner or I might use in our judgements but not >that they are entitled to information that partner or I are prohibited >from using by law (absent specific infractions). As an analogy if I know >that partner never false-cards in defence oppos too are entitled to that >information, if I know that he never false cards as declarer then I feel >they are not entitled to that knowledge. To me there is a clear >difference between an understanding (ie mutually recognised knowledge that >is used in an attempt to defeat opponents) and mere knowledge. > ++++ It must be understood that the fact you will never make use of knowledge about your partner's psychic habits does NOT absolve you from the absolute requirement to share that knowledge with the world - and in particular your opponents and the Director. ~ Grattan ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 02:52:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:52:23 +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 CAA24805 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:52:16 +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 JAA02556; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:51:35 -0700 Message-Id: <199906011651.JAA02556@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Problem Ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:05:35 PDT." <199906010904.LAA18798@hera.frw.uva.nl> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 09:51:35 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: > Anne Jones wrote: > > > I consider that Pass is LA. and rule 4S*= (It looks as though there are > > 2 Hearts and a Club to lose.) > > I suppose West leads the heart ace (or king). > IMO even a 'moderately competent' East player would now drop the > heart queen, requesting a diamond switch. So 4S* is two down on > two diamond ruffs. I don't know what the conventional defenses are where you live, but the way I learned to play, if opening leader leads the ace or king from A-K, and 3rd hand drops the queen, this promises the jack, and either requests or suggests an underlead, depending on which books you read. Suit preference *might* be the correct interpretation of the queen on this particular hand. To figure this out, West has to determine that East has no reason to want the lead, and West also has to determine that East *knows* he has no reason to want the lead, and to determine that East knows that West will be able to figure that out. Most likely, East wouldn't be willing to make a play like the queen that could be so easily misinterpreted. I'm willing to bet that a fair number of experts would fail to beat the contract two tricks---some would use up the entries prematurely and beat it only one trick. So since at least one of the pair is only "moderately competent", I can't see adjusting this to -300. In fact, I think L12C2's instruction to assign the "most favorable" or "most unfavorable" result that was "at all probable" means I have to award at least +590, maybe +690 depending on how probable I thought it would be that the defense would only cash two of their top three tricks while trying to figure out how to beat the contract. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 03:47:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA25056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 03:47:22 +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 DAA25050 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 03:47:11 +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 OAA22311 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:00:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990601134817.006e7000@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 13:48:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D00855302762B@MAIL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:10 AM 6/1/99 -0400, Richard wrote: >I would argue that full disclosure requires that players must assign >specific meanings to >Their bids, and follow those specific definitions regardless of what >defenses the opponent's >Might chose to adopt. I don't find anything in the laws that *requires* players to assign specific meanings to every bid. I thought we went around (at least) once on this point already. >Once I decide to preempt on garbage, I need to live with this decision >and continue to >preempt on garbage regardless of the fact that I'm playing against a >pair who likes to >penalty double. > >I agree with the conclusions that Marvin reached. However, I think that >his focus on >Implicit partnership agreements versus conventions and the like is a >distraction from >the primary point at hand. For example, I'm not sure whether Eric >disagrees with >the point of Law that Marvin is making or merely his justification for >it. > >I believe that if one simply models the bidding process as a staged >decision tree, it becomes >Very easy to determine where the chicken and egg problem arises. I >would argue that >Regardless of whether a player is choosing to tighten up his style or >adopting a new convention, >Deciding to change a the precise definition of a bid predicated on the >specific defense that >The opposing pair will adopt is the crux of the entire problem. The point is that my agreement (it doesn't matter whether it's explicit or implicit) isn't to preempt (or overcall) "on garbage". Rather, it is, as common sense suggests, that it is systemically permissible to preempt on as little as I think I can get away with without getting doubled and set an unacceptably large number -- which could, of course, be "on garbage", if that's what I think I can get away with under the circumstances. When I fail to preempt against a particular pair with a hand with which I would preempt against other pairs in the field, I am not altering or violating my agreement; I am conforming to it. I don't believe that the laws could possibly intend to prevent me from "seeing" who my opponents are and incorporating that knowledge into my exercise of my bidding judgment. I also have an "agreement" (which I also believe to be "common knowledge and experience") that I will give correct defensive signals unless I believe it will help declarer more than it will help partner, and do not believe that this requires me to make the same signal with the same hand under the same circumstances against different declarers. It can't be illegal to vary my bidding practices (not methods) according to my judgment of my opponents and be legal to vary my signalling practices according to my judgment of my opponents. Another agreement I play all the time is that 1NT-X-2C is a non-constructive runout from 1NTX to 2C. Richard's view suggests that with any given hand, when it goes 1NT-X-?, I must either pass or bid 2C every time, regardless of whether or not my "table feel" tells me that my LHO is about to pass RHO's double or pull it. That's coming awfully close to ignoring L73D1. I could go on and on... 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 Jun 2 04:42:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA25420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 04:42:18 +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 EAA25415 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 04:42:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.gnnettest.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (4533 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:42:03 -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 ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:41:23 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530276B5@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 14:41:22 -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 ---------- From: Eric Landau [SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 1:48 PM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) >I also have an "agreement" (which I also believe to be "common knowledge >and experience") that I will give correct defensive signals unless I >believe it will help declarer more than it will help partner, and do not >believe that this requires me to make the same signal with the same hand >under the same circumstances against different declarers. It can't be >illegal to vary my bidding practices (not methods) according to my judgment >of my opponents and be legal to vary my signalling practices according to >my judgment of my opponents. >Another agreement I play all the time is that 1NT-X-2C is a >non-constructive runout from 1NTX to 2C. Richard's view suggests that with >any given hand, when it goes 1NT-X-?, I must either pass or bid 2C every >time, regardless of whether or not my "table feel" tells me that my LHO is >about to pass RHO's double or pull it. That's coming awfully close to >ignoring L73D1. I stated that players must assign a meaning to specific bids. I never claimed that these meanings were constrained to "pure strategies". {In the nomenclature of Game Theory, a pure strategy is one specific action that players will always follow. In contrast, a mixed strategy uses a probability density function to randomize between a set of pure strategies} I'll use a familiar example. In first seat, partner opens 3D promising precisely Seven diamonds with two of the top three honors. No side void No side Ace or King No side 4 card major. RHO passes My specific hand is xxx xxx Qxxx Kxx One possible pure strategy would be to always bid 5D with the specified hand. Another would be to always bid 4D with the specified hand. A possible mixed strategy would be Bid 5D 80% of the time Bid 4D 5% of the time Bid 6D 5% of the time Bid 3N 5% of the time Pass 5% of the time I see nothing wrong with following either of the two strategies described. Personally, however, I'd probably use the mixed strategy since I think it is likely to work better in the long run. (I distinctly don't like to have a predictable style of bidding) (Note, to reference another thread occurring on this list - the concept of a mixed strategy might be useful in attempt to define a psyche.) With respect to your point about table feel. I also don't see anything wrong with adjusting one's probabilities slightly to compensate for "table feel" or the fact that RHO is a rank novice. However, I consider these choices to be fundamentally different than using information about what defensive methods the opponents might use. As I mentioned before in an earlier post. There are two possible formats that one can use to model a "game" like bridge bidding and avoid the "Chicken and the Egg" problem. One format is to set up a game of simultaneous disclosure wherein each side simultaneously discloses their complete bidding system. The second format is to design an iterative game in which each side discloses the meanings of bids in sequence. However, either format requires certain behavior on the part of individual players. The simultaneous move game requires that players NOT change any of their strategies (either pure or mixed) in response to the opponent's selection. In the case of the sequential move game it requires that players accurately disclose the meanings of their bids. This type of example is very easy for people to understand in the case of a game with that has a discrete strategies like "Paper, Rocks, Scissors" or matching pennies. In the case of bridge where a continuous interval like hand evaluation is a function for the strategy space, the issues apparently become more difficult to visualize. But the logic is precisely the same. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 06:37:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA26194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 06:37:35 +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 GAA26188 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 06:37:27 +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 NAA06030 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006601beac6e$7915bb80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:36:02 -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 Eric Landau wrote: Marvin L. FrenchI wrote: >(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. > > While Marv's analysis is generally pretty much on target, I can't buy this > one. That a player will be more conservative with intervention against > opponents whose methods are atypically geared to extracting penalties from > intervening opponents is obvious common sense and must fall into the > category of "general knowledge and experience". As such it cannot, by > itself, create a "special partnership agreement", as would, for example > varying one's conventional agreements. > This is a tough one. Local expert John Strauch, who with Evan Bailey plays the very aggressive Bailey Two Bids, something like 8-11 HCP, weak five-card suit okay, etc., told me that when they are having a good game he might pass with a hand that contains the requirements for a two bid, especially when vulnerable, with a weak suit, against good opponents. That is okay, so long as he has not discussed this with Evan before a round, and Evan doesn't base his actions on that knowledge. What bothers me is that a regular partnership will be aware of each other's tendencies in such situations after a while, and will end up not playing the system that is on their card. Playing a hand, I might assume one of them does not have a certain high card, or a certain suit length, because he did not open with a Bailey Two Bid. At the very least, I think a partnership should comment on sitting down, "We're having a good game, so don't expect our usual aggressiveness." Something like that. Changing system because of a defense encountered, however, is illegal, unethical, unfair, and unsportsmanlike. I believe John and Evan do not modify their weak twos against "optional doubles," and I commend them for that. A while ago I was of the opinion that "system" perhaps did not refer to strength of calls, only to their meaning. If so, one could change the strength of a call without having it constitute a change of system. However, Steve Willner asked me didn't I think that changing from 16-18 HCP 1NT openings to 9-12 HCP would be a system change? Sure it would be, so changing strength does change system. One might say, well not if you change just a bit, but where do you stop? If the ACBL regulation bars such explicit statements as "We play sound overcalls, but not against your penalty doubles," a conditional initial action, then it becomes illegal to adopt that policy implicitly by "sensibly" tightening up against penalty doublers. As a perennial underdog, I discarded negative doubles in favor of penalty doubles, feeling that such "contrary bidding" could get me some tops that would not be available to others. Part of that decision was the prevalence of unsound overcalls these days. If someone changes system against me, I don't think that is legal, ethical, fair, or sportsmanlike. Other pairs get the benefits of the weak overcalls (doubling is still possible, and there is often some resultant overbidding), and I am deprived of them. Perhaps permitting a change in "aggressiveness," which means either avoiding marginal calls or making marginal calls, while not changing the HCP that partner will expect, would be acceptable Using suit quality rather than HCP or suit length as a criterion for such adjustments should be okay. Against weak players my 8-trick strong jump overcall hands may be optimistically evaluated, with a suit like AQ6432 counted as five tricks, and maybe a count of two tricks for an outside Q10xx. Partner will not allow for this possibility, however, could not for fear of missing a game, and so will raise to the four level with two likely tricks. Against strong pairs I would not take such liberties, but I don't think that constitutes a change in system. I see no way around this conundrum, and conclude that one must play essentially the same game against all opponents and all defenses, as the ACBL regulation seems to require. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 09:31:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA27095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:31:07 +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 JAA27090 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:30:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip77.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.77]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990601233049.LPQR1342.fep2@ip77.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:30:49 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 01:30:48 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <375566dc.4562099@post12.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990530221037.00749744@pop.mindspring.com> <3751F98C.2F2B55A5@mindspring.com> <37528859.46FF8D84@village.uunet.be> <3752BA8C.BEABE76A@mindspring.com> <3753C96D.9D22334B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3753C96D.9D22334B@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 JAA27091 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 13:52:13 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: [About opening 80% of 0-3 point hands third in hand] >That means that even if partner would explain my third hand >opening as "99.9% certain a five card, in 0.1% of the cases >0-3 points and less hearts than spades", ... Even if it happens very rarely, fourth hand really needs exactly that information when he is looking at a 30-point hand - your tendency to psyche will then increase his chances of finding a few points with partner very much. But it is not only the hands on which you open that are interesting. The percentage of third-hand non-opening hands that have 0-3 points is low, but probably not extremely low (I'm too lazy to do the math). If you pass only 20% of those, your partner should definitely remember to alert your third-hand passes and explain them as something like "less than an opening hand, but almost never 0-3 points". This information can be quite important, particularly in the play. Under the Danish systems rules, I would rule it a HUM system because of its "strong" pass. This is not because I find your system in any way problematic to defend against, but because the rules regulate opening passes that show anything other than a strength interval beginning at 0. Those rules may be unreasonably hard in this case - but I believe that most HUM regulations are worded more or less like that. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 10:04:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:04:17 +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 KAA27317 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:04:07 +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 UAA02829 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA11473 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:04:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:04:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906020004.UAA11473@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 > From: "ton kooijman" > 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). I'm not sure what you are asking here. Perhaps my language was unclear. But let me put it this way: if I were asked to set the WBFLC agenda for laws to be changed in 2007, L25B (everyone's favorite!) would top the list, but 25A and 45C4b would come next. Their difficulty of application is exactly the problem. Let me ask you (and other experienced TD's), do you have problems applying L45C1? Are the players unhappy with the result? I suspect not. Why not? Because there is a simple factual test: was the card held so as to be visible to defender's partner, or was it not? Of course the TD wasn't at the table, and no doubt sometimes the ruling is incorrect, but everyone knows what the rule is. (Or at least the TD can explain it with no trouble.) I agree that the situation is more complicated for inadvertent calls and for declarer's plays (both from hand and from dummy). We don't want to make manual dexterity part of bridge (although it necessarily is so for defenders' plays), but surely the rules can be simplified so everyone understands what they are. > 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. The meanings are closely related, but I don't think they are the same. I think the example comes closest: partner bids a forcing 1C, which I don't see, and I pass. Of course I never wanted to pass a forcing bid, and it could well be considered random or without purpose, and perhaps a force outside myself prevented me from seeing the 1C bid. On the other hand, at the time I passed, that was the call I intended, although my intent was based on faulty information. Was the pass inadvertent? Yes, in the sense of inattentive, but no, in the sense of unintentional. Whatever one's preference for which sense of "inadvertent' should apply, it seems to me that a rule that depends on a subtle distinction like this one is fundamentally flawed. Of course the Vancouver case illustrates the problem with all "take-back" rules. The actual case can be decided on strictly legal grounds, but suppose Ms. Stansby had summoned the TD immediately after her RHO had played S-K? How could the case have been decided without mind reading? Perhaps the problem is my lack of understanding of how to apply the laws in question. I welcome the chance to be educated. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 11:22:25 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:22:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27728 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:22:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (p251-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.251]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA20665 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:22:13 +1200 Message-ID: <000a01beac95$954feba0$fb6f12ce@default> From: "J Atkinson" To: Subject: Inadvertancy Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:16:44 +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 I agree that inadvertancy can be hard to rule, but generally players are forthcoming about why they have made a particular bid. Perhaps the best determination I have seen is Grattan and Endicotts ..."slip of the mind" (I hope I have that right :)) What the mind intended the pen didnt write. I find this a good guide. Julie Atkinson -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, 2 June 1999 12:24 Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal >> From: "ton kooijman" >> 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). > >I'm not sure what you are asking here. Perhaps my language was >unclear. But let me put it this way: if I were asked to set the WBFLC >agenda for laws to be changed in 2007, L25B (everyone's favorite!) >would top the list, but 25A and 45C4b would come next. Their >difficulty of application is exactly the problem. > >Let me ask you (and other experienced TD's), do you have problems >applying L45C1? Are the players unhappy with the result? I suspect >not. Why not? Because there is a simple factual test: was the card >held so as to be visible to defender's partner, or was it not? Of >course the TD wasn't at the table, and no doubt sometimes the ruling is >incorrect, but everyone knows what the rule is. (Or at least the TD >can explain it with no trouble.) > >I agree that the situation is more complicated for inadvertent calls >and for declarer's plays (both from hand and from dummy). We don't >want to make manual dexterity part of bridge (although it necessarily >is so for defenders' plays), but surely the rules can be simplified so >everyone understands what they are. > >> 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. > >The meanings are closely related, but I don't think they are the same. >I think the example comes closest: partner bids a forcing 1C, which I >don't see, and I pass. Of course I never wanted to pass a forcing bid, >and it could well be considered random or without purpose, and perhaps >a force outside myself prevented me from seeing the 1C bid. On the >other hand, at the time I passed, that was the call I intended, >although my intent was based on faulty information. > >Was the pass inadvertent? Yes, in the sense of inattentive, but no, >in the sense of unintentional. > >Whatever one's preference for which sense of "inadvertent' should >apply, it seems to me that a rule that depends on a subtle distinction >like this one is fundamentally flawed. > >Of course the Vancouver case illustrates the problem with all >"take-back" rules. The actual case can be decided on strictly legal >grounds, but suppose Ms. Stansby had summoned the TD immediately after >her RHO had played S-K? How could the case have been decided without >mind reading? > >Perhaps the problem is my lack of understanding of how to apply the >laws in question. I welcome the chance to be educated. > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 11:44:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:20 +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 LAA27895 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:06 +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 10p04S-000A2R-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:43:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:39:50 +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: <374E7934.6F64C925@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <374E7934.6F64C925@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >richard 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. It is unplayable when he does not count his cards? Even if he has thirteen? -- 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 Jun 2 11:44:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:30 +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 LAA27900 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:11 +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 10p04T-000A2Q-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:46:12 +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: <374e1322.2977942@post12.tele.dk> <374BC4D3.FF63DC4B@village.uunet.be> <374d485d.3086658@post12.tele.dk> <374CFC37.8039B1E7@village.uunet.be> <376f168f.10869499@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <376f168f.10869499@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: >>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. We get a *lot* of posts that suggest that Laws are not worthwhile unless we can prove something, or at least demonstrate it. They are continually with us, and they are fairly annoying. Even if you ignore any bridge player who does not read BLML, you are still left with quite a reasonable number of highly ethical players who like to play bridge according to the rules - and would like to know what those rules are. It is a worthwhile exercise to discuss rules even where they are not particularly enforceable. Furthermore, penalties are a judgement matter for the TD and AC. So *anything* that is against the rules might be penalised in some circumstances. Basically I cannot think of anything that is against the rules that will *never* be penalised. In case anyone is wondering at my use of the word 'rules' I always think of 'rules' in bridge as the Laws plus the regulations. -- 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 Jun 2 11:44:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:53 +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 LAA27919 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:35 +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 10p04g-000A2c-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:11 +0000 Message-ID: <5+1DYrAyZIV3EwpB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:18:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn References: <003101bea921$6f736140$718193c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <003101bea921$6f736140$718193c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >>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. This regulation has been superseded in 1997 by L54 which covers this as a matter of Law: LAW 54 - FACED OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN 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. ........ -- 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 Jun 2 11:45:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:45:15 +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 LAA27950 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:57 +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 10p04b-000A2R-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:06:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199905281906.OAA23864@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199905281906.OAA23864@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant S [*] wrote: > 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. Why is everyone talking about equity? Equity does not come into it. The line stated in effect gave declarer either one or two bonus tricks, and most people are happy to give revoker the benefit of the doubt. It feels unfair to me to give the benefit of any doubt to the offenders: that's all that I object to. [*] I have had complaints from writing Christian names only here: please could people arrange to have Reply-To addresses in their emails so the problem does not occur? -- 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 Jun 2 11:45:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:45:16 +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 LAA27941 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:47 +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 10p04g-000A2R-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:12 +0000 Message-ID: <8usCMtAXdIV3Ewou@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:22:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn References: <374E8345.55DCBA6E@xtra.co.nz> <375120D4.31229BEF@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <375120D4.31229BEF@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: >"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. *coff* I am sure that the Lawmakers will make that clear 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 Jun 2 11:45:18 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:45:18 +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 LAA27960 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:45:03 +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 10p04h-0009Qy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:34:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn References: <8a92bee9.2481503f@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <8a92bee9.2481503f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >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. Ok, let me throw my hat into the ring, and see if it gets shot down. L50D says [inter alia]: (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner). So, the player leads the spade ace, sees a penalty card of the spade king, and decides to underlead the spade ace instead of lead it. Perfectly proper, he has used the information "that offender must play the card" which is UI. Now, suppose he originally was going to make a desperation lead of the diamond king from Kx against a suit contract. However, now he sees the spade king as a penalty card, presumably showing the spade queen, and realises that his original lead is neither necessary nor desirable: if partner has S KQ the contract is unlikely to make. So now he leads a passive trump. Is this OK? No, he has used "other information arising from facing of the penalty card" and that is UI. Thus it may make the application of the UI effects of this situation easier to judge if the TD takes note of the face-down card. -------- Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >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). No, that's no help. He may be allowed to change it, so long as he is using AI [that partner has to play the penalty card] and not UI [the other effects of partner having led it]. We do not want the other players to know whether it is changed or not. -- 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 Jun 2 12:02:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:56 +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 LAA27923 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:38 +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 10p04e-0009Qx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:10:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal References: <007001bea947$61edd020$75ecf1c3@kooijman> <37711715.11003281@post12.tele.dk> <37506e50.745171@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <37506e50.745171@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >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. I think L25A is a good Law. Players are getting used to it and often understand it without problem. More than you can say for a lot of other Laws! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 12:54:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:59 +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 LAA27939 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:45 +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 10p04i-0009Qx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:41:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Swiss Teams References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Romanski wrote: >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. Nice to know the name. Tonight I played a team for the fourth time this year. So far they have 51 VPs, we have 29! -- 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 Jun 2 13:04:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:54 +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 LAA27921 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:36 +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 10p04b-0009Qy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:51:37 +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: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027561@MAIL> In-Reply-To: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553027561@MAIL> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: >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? Only in Level 4 events with a minimum of seven-board stanzas. >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. Psyches are by reference to the system played. If a pair plays Rule of 20 in 1st/2nd and Rule of 19 in third, that's legal. As explained in another post, Rule of 19 [Rule of 18 at Level 4] is a basic requirement for agreement whether 3ih or not. -- 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 Jun 2 13:52:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA28364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:52:29 +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 NAA28359 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegc5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.65.133]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA16731 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:52:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990601234534.00740cc0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 23:45:34 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Problem Ruling (LONG) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wow! I don't recall ever being so totally outgunned on any question in the past, and the normal reaction would be to slink away quietly and lick my wounds. However, "normal" being not exactly my personal grail... The problem we face is not "how to keep the game honest" (Kojak), nor what East's actions should/would be in the face of alternative UI ("fast, happy double"), as suggested by John Probst. Rather, the question before us is whether Pass is a logical alternative holding xx,QTxxx,-,AKJxxx after the auction: P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied 2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. 4S-D*-P-? I agree completely with Anne, et al, that IF Pass is a LA, then removing the double is clearly suggested. So is Pass a LA, in the precise sense of an action that >30% of players would take (EBU rules)? I contend that it is a seriously flawed action which very few players would in fact make. It is true that the hand offers some defensive prospects, in theory. If I could convince partner to lead diamonds, then 4S rates to go down more often than not. But in practice, it will be very tough to get a diamond lead from partner. So the hoped-for diamond ruffs are probably illusory. What I am I likely to contribute to the defense? Probably a club trick, though maybe not even that much. So I am counting on partner, with on average 8-10 hcp, to contribute at least 3 tricks to the defense. Someone tried to argue that this hand is better for defense than it might be for the bidding, but this is only defensible with a very broad reading of "might be". East has bid strongly here. Reasonably, to be sure, in view of the hand's playing strength, but without ever having expressed to partner the highly offensive orientation of the hand. Will partner expect to find me with only 10 HCP, with a hand tilted so decisively toward offense? Not likely. So my chances of beating 4S are not especially bright, and if there's anything that's clear on the hand, it is that 4S making is going to be a bottom for us. But even when we can beat 4S, it may not be a very good result, because lots of hands that partner could hold for the double afford at least a play for 5C, and opposite some of those, 5C will be cold (the actual hand being a typical example). What about partner's double? Presumably most people see it as strictly business, but I disagree. First of all, there's almost no chance that partner holds a spade stack, and I would say he's more likely to hold 2 than 3, if the opponents are at all competent. Granted this is not an -ive style double, but in principle it seems much more like a double made by a player in a forcing pass auction, i.e., expressing a reluctance to bid more without necessarily promising huge defensive values. Now this is _not_ strictly a forcing pass auction, I admit. But I'm generally reluctant to let the opponents play in game undoubled after I've pushed them into it, so there is at least a hint of forcing pass in this situation. That means that while partner _might_ really have the opponents by the short hairs, he might also be a trick or two shy of the 3 defensive tricks I will need from him, and is simply warning me about the limits of his hand for 5C. Finally, what about these "competent opponents"? They've bid to game with little more than half the deck, if partner is to be believed. What do they know about the hand? Well, for starters, I doubt they're worried about 2 quick club losers. But more importantly, lefty's willingness to be pushed into 4S, as a passed hand, suggests that his hand has gotten better on this auction. What could that be about? Doesn't it suggest, in combination with my diamond void, that lefty appreciates the playing strength of his double fit in the pointed suits? And if they have the double pointed suit fit that the auction indicates, doesn't that strongly increase the odds of a double fit for our side? And don't both of these potential double fits weigh heavily on the side of bidding? To sum up: --I have less defensive prospects than partner might reasonably hope for, and his double is unlikely to promise the defensive tricks that we are likely going to need. --I'm about as likely to make 5C as to beat 4S. --4S making is a sure bottom, while beating 4S is not necessarily a good result. --5C making is apt to be our best possible result, while going down isn't necessarily bad. --The opponents' bidding suggests the presence of double fits all around, making the double game swing more likely and the risk of a phantom sac less so. Is this reasoning accessible to most "moderately competent" players? By my own lights, I'm only slightly better than that standard myself (and I'm sure I can drum up a few former partners who will call that bragging). So, yes. Perhaps this is, after all, nothing more than a dispute about a bridge judgement, and one at that in which I am completely out in left field, compared to the judgements of my peers. So be it. But really, would you sit for this double, absent the UI? I wouldn't even consider it. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 13:56:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:55 +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 LAA27920 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:44:35 +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 10p04f-000A2Q-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:44:10 +0000 Message-ID: <2uCAsmAvVIV3Ewoe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:14:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: Play of a board against wrong pair References: <199905311438.KAA08752@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199905311438.KAA08752@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "David Martin" >> ########## 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." > >Yes, there is no question that the moving pairs are responsible for >their own movement. The question is whether stationary pairs share the >responsibility in any degree? > >> 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. ######## > >The prevailing interpretation is otherwise in North America, although I >have never seen a formal regulation to that effect. But typically if >an artificial score is needed, the moving pair would get avg- (at >fault) and the stationary pair avg (partly at fault). But I have seen >and read about only a few examples, so it wouldn't surprise me if some >TD's had different ideas. But is this an interpretation of the Law? Are you sure it is not custom and practice or regulation or something? Are you sure this is an interpretation of this specific Law? >I hope we all agree that the matter is one within the scope of SO >regulation. Do WBF CoC typically contain any statement on the matter? Of course it is reasonable as a regulation. It is also acceptable as an instruction from the TD: if he says that players must check their opponents then they are required to. This is quite normal here: players are not required to check during Mitchells, but are instructed to check during Howells. But it is not an interpretation of a Law that I consider 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 ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 14:00:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:00:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28385 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:00:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-229-154.s535.tnt6.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.229.154]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id XAA16301 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00ca01beacac$517ab060$9ae57ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01beac1d$9c921140$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: Problem Ruling Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:59:28 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 6:57 AM Subject: Re: Problem Ruling > Yes. > I did write something like this but sent it to TWM by accident. > it read:- > After thoughts:- I am certainly ruling this back to 4S*. As a table ruling, I agree. Somewhere there are players who would consider passing 4S*. Accordingly, it is an LA, at least by ACBL standards. 5C is suggested over pass by the table action accompanying the double, so 4S* it is. As a TD, I don't see that I have a choice here. > Now if E/W were able to convince me that the defence > would be AH, Dx- ruff, Hx to HK, > Dx - ruff.I would award a split score:- > Most favourable result likely to N/S is 4S*= > Most unfavourable result probable is E/W= 4S* - 2 > N/S +590 > E/W +300 > Anne > > > To those who advocate that bidding 5C is automatic > because partner is a passed hand. > Correct defence makes East hand worth 3 tricks, > and why can West not hold > AKx > xx > xxx > xxxxx > > [because the double would be in tempo!] > If W holds this hand, he has to find the diamond switch immediately on getting the lead to set 4S one (and that only if a clubs are 1-1). 5C is an overwhelming favorite to make. If W holds this hand, pass is awful. I hope that you didn't post this as an example of a hand that E should let the double sit with. That would require a something like KJx, xxx, Axxx, xxx. That hand might set 4S, while 5C is going down. As a member of an AC, I would look at this a bit differently than I would as a table ruling. Correct defence may well allow the E hand to take 3 tricks, but is it visible at the table? Defensive tricks are the CA, if it holds up and a ruff if partner has an entry. Partner is not only a passed hand, but was only able to muster a single raise over the 2C overcall. In order to leave the double in, E has to believe that partner is going to come up with about three tricks. Not on this bidding. The key is the small doubleton spade. W will *not* have a trump stack. The E hand is huge offensively, but almost worthless on defense. In any event, it would not take much to convince me that pass was not a LA. IMO the case for 5C is extremely compelling. Pass is a poor call, regardless of the speed of the double. Reverse the diamonds and spades in the E hand, so that there is a possibility of a trump stack, and the situation is very different. > >> >P -P -1D-2C * The double was slightly slow and accompanied > >> >2S-3C-3S-4C by a small shake of the head. > >> >4S-D*-P-5C > >> >P -P- D. (AP) > >> > > >> >East held 83,QT542,-,AKJTxx and made 5C*+1 opposite xx,AKxx,Txx,xxxx Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 14:20:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA28452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:20:44 +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 OAA28447 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:20:33 +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 VAA26515 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d201beacaf$224edac0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990601134817.006e7000@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:18:24 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > > > The point is that my agreement (it doesn't matter whether it's explicit or > implicit) isn't to preempt (or overcall) "on garbage". Rather, it is, as > common sense suggests, that it is systemically permissible to preempt on as > little as I think I can get away with without getting doubled and set an > unacceptably large number -- which could, of course, be "on garbage", if > that's what I think I can get away with under the circumstances. When I > fail to preempt against a particular pair with a hand with which I would > preempt against other pairs in the field, I am not altering or violating my > agreement; I am conforming to it. But there is a place on the current ACBL cc where one must indicate whether preempts are sound, light, or very light. As I understand it, you can check more than one box if the conditions are seat or vulnerability, but not if the conditions are based on defensive actions (e.g., takeout doubles, optional doubles). It strikes me that it is probably legal to check all three boxes with a notation "as the mood strikes us," if your sole criteria are the ability of the opponents or the state of the score. No fair looking at their defenses vs preempts, however, until the bid is made :)) > > I don't believe that the laws could possibly intend to prevent me from > "seeing" who my opponents are and incorporating that knowledge into my > exercise of my bidding judgment. Right. Just so long as you play what your convention card says you play, or, if you do violate system, that there is no special agreement with partner to this effect and the violation is not protected in any way by a special partnership understanding (ie.., as opposed to partner's general knowledge or experience). > I also have an "agreement" (which I also believe to be "common knowledge > and experience") that I will give correct defensive signals unless I > believe it will help declarer more than it will help partner, and do not > believe that this requires me to make the same signal with the same hand > under the same circumstances against different declarers. It can't be > illegal to vary my bidding practices (not methods) according to my judgment > of my opponents and be legal to vary my signalling practices according to > my judgment of my opponents. > > Another agreement I play all the time is that 1NT-X-2C is a > non-constructive runout from 1NTX to 2C. Richard's view suggests that with > any given hand, when it goes 1NT-X-?, I must either pass or bid 2C every > time, regardless of whether or not my "table feel" tells me that my LHO is > about to pass RHO's double or pull it. That's coming awfully close to > ignoring L73D1. > > I could go on and on... > Don't know about Richard, but I agree with all this, if the criteria are precisely those given. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 18:00:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:00:41 +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 SAA29089 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:00:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem119.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.247] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10p5wd-0001xH-00; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:00:16 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 23:58:10 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never!" - Hans Richter at rehearsal. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: What is AI for fielding a psyche? > Date: 27 May 1999 13:04 > > At 08:26 AM 5/26/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: >My ob jection 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 Eric answered: > 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. > ++++ The words quoted, if said, would IMO reflect a recognition that it is a position in which partner may psyche. This would hardly arise from recall of one psychic on some remote occasion - the possibility is too clearly in the player's mind for that. He is prepared to see it happen, not taken by surprise at all. Common sense tells us this is a player who knows he has been here before. I do not accept that to psyche once in a lifetime creates a circumstance to which one can apply the phrase "habitual violations" in Law 75B. That is a distortion of the meaning of the English language. I do accept that the kind of statement contained in Schoderb's text reflects a partnership understanding and there is little doubt in my mind that it points to an awareness of more truly habitual actions. I would want to introduce more precise text into the relevant laws. ~ Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 18:00:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:00:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29084 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:00:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA18336; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:00:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl by AGRO.NL (PMDF V5.1-9 #24815) with ESMTP id <01JBX5QD7JEM001JE7@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:59:10 +0200 Received: by AGRO005S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Wed, 02 Jun 1999 09:59:10 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 09:58:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Inadvertancy To: "'J Atkinson'" , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1B6@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 Th big question, in my opinion,is: do want want to allow players to change a legal call or play under certain circumstances. The present answer on that question is: yes. I personally am in favour of upholding that approach. If we do we have to live with the problems arising from it. There is another less principle approach: since it appears to be impossible to apply laws when making the choice to allow these changes,even under well described circumstances, we better don't allow it (I didn't come to that conclusion yet). ton -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: J Atkinson [mailto:jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz] Verzonden: woensdag 2 juni 1999 3:17 Aan: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Inadvertancy I agree that inadvertancy can be hard to rule, but generally players are forthcoming about why they have made a particular bid. Perhaps the best determination I have seen is Grattan and Endicotts ..."slip of the mind" (I hope I have that right :)) What the mind intended the pen didnt write. I find this a good guide. Julie Atkinson -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, 2 June 1999 12:24 Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal >> From: "ton kooijman" >> 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). > >I'm not sure what you are asking here. Perhaps my language was >unclear. But let me put it this way: if I were asked to set the WBFLC >agenda for laws to be changed in 2007, L25B (everyone's favorite!) >would top the list, but 25A and 45C4b would come next. Their >difficulty of application is exactly the problem. > >Let me ask you (and other experienced TD's), do you have problems >applying L45C1? Are the players unhappy with the result? I suspect >not. Why not? Because there is a simple factual test: was the card >held so as to be visible to defender's partner, or was it not? Of >course the TD wasn't at the table, and no doubt sometimes the ruling is >incorrect, but everyone knows what the rule is. (Or at least the TD >can explain it with no trouble.) > >I agree that the situation is more complicated for inadvertent calls >and for declarer's plays (both from hand and from dummy). We don't >want to make manual dexterity part of bridge (although it necessarily >is so for defenders' plays), but surely the rules can be simplified so >everyone understands what they are. > >> 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. > >The meanings are closely related, but I don't think they are the same. >I think the example comes closest: partner bids a forcing 1C, which I >don't see, and I pass. Of course I never wanted to pass a forcing bid, >and it could well be considered random or without purpose, and perhaps >a force outside myself prevented me from seeing the 1C bid. On the >other hand, at the time I passed, that was the call I intended, >although my intent was based on faulty information. > >Was the pass inadvertent? Yes, in the sense of inattentive, but no, >in the sense of unintentional. > >Whatever one's preference for which sense of "inadvertent' should >apply, it seems to me that a rule that depends on a subtle distinction >like this one is fundamentally flawed. > >Of course the Vancouver case illustrates the problem with all >"take-back" rules. The actual case can be decided on strictly legal >grounds, but suppose Ms. Stansby had summoned the TD immediately after >her RHO had played S-K? How could the case have been decided without >mind reading? > >Perhaps the problem is my lack of understanding of how to apply the >laws in question. I welcome the chance to be educated. > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 18:34:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA29272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:34:27 +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 SAA29267 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:34:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:30:56 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990602103115.007d1550@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, 02 Jun 1999 10:31:15 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Swiss Teams and adjusted scores MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id SAA29268 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! Round about a swiss team a question arised: During a swiss team, sth happens to a table and the TD adjusts the score (say 2nd round). The tournament is over now and the offending team is appealing the AC wants to change the score back to the table result. 1st question: Makes it a difference for anyone, that the offending team would have had better opps all the time due to the fact, that the swiss team-pairings are a result of the scores before? 2nd question: At the end of this swiss team event is a real final between the 1st teams. Say there is a carryover which says VP´s more= IMP´s advantage. So this will change as well because the AC decides to adjust the score. Any effect in any way? Thanks a lot in advance Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 20:37:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA29664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:37:59 +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 UAA29659 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:37:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA10683 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:37:06 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 2 Jun 99 11:37 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Problem Ruling (LONG) 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: <3.0.1.32.19990601234534.00740cc0@pop.mindspring.com> Many thanks to all who responded I have passed the comments on to the TD and club manager and they were, on the whole, relieved. The TDs table ruling was 4S*-2 and the concern was that perhaps this was grossly unfair to EW. The responses to date leave me with the impression I had before (that the ruling was indeed close but not one which should be criticised). As it happens the game was Chicago (but played with a duplicate law-book!) rather than pairs - I realise I forgot to include this info and hope it does not affect people's analysis too much. Mike Dennis wrote: > > To sum up: > --I have less defensive prospects than partner might reasonably hope > for, > and his double is unlikely to promise the defensive tricks that we are > likely going to need. > --I'm about as likely to make 5C as to beat 4S. > --4S making is a sure bottom, while beating 4S is not necessarily a good > result. > --5C making is apt to be our best possible result, while going down > isn't > necessarily bad. > --The opponents' bidding suggests the presence of double fits all > around, > making the double game swing more likely and the risk of a phantom sac > less > so. > > Is this reasoning accessible to most "moderately competent" players? By > my own lights, I'm only slightly better than that standard myself (and > I'm sure I can drum up a few former partners who will call that > bragging). So, > yes. >From what I have read of Mike's writings he uses the term "moderately competent" to include a rather higher standard than my initial intent. Perhaps he is a much better analyst than player:-). I think the reasoning Mike suggests is largely accessible to a player of East's standard ie passing 4S* would be a poor bid. However, I have often encountered a reluctance amongst weaker players to remove doubles made by much stronger players and I felt that this would have lead many players in this position to pass an in tempo double (I was South and I requested the ruling). FWIW I think 4C is a bad bid (my choice 4D) and the double of 4S even worse (West is probably the best player in the club and has placed well in international events but he was having a bad day. The making available of UI was decidedly uncharacteristic of him!) > Perhaps this is, after all, nothing more than a dispute about a bridge > judgement, and one at that in which I am completely out in left field, > compared to the judgements of my peers. So be it. But really, would you > sit for this double, absent the UI? I wouldn't even consider it. Had I been sitting East I might well have visualised the following layout of the hands at the critical decision point. Qxx Axx Axxxx Qx AJ9 xx xx QTxxx QJTx - xxxx AKJTxx KTxxx KJx K9xx x Here both North and South have been slightly aggressive in the bidding but that is compatible with their known styles - (on a different day South may well have opened his actual holding of KQT9xx,xx,KJxx,x). I would certainly *consider* sitting the double absent UI but I might decide it was not an LA for me. I'd appeal a ruling of 4S*= but not one of 4S*-2. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 21:03:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:03:11 +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 VAA29777 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:03:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-79-85.uunet.be [194.7.79.85]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11233 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:02:51 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37550858.BB4EF637@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 12:32:57 +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: Clear enough References: <3.0.1.32.19990530221037.00749744@pop.mindspring.com> <3751F98C.2F2B55A5@mindspring.com> <37528859.46FF8D84@village.uunet.be> <3752BA8C.BEABE76A@mindspring.com> <3753C96D.9D22334B@village.uunet.be> <375566dc.4562099@post12.tele.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > >That means that even if partner would explain my third hand > >opening as "99.9% certain a five card, in 0.1% of the cases > >0-3 points and less hearts than spades", ... > > Even if it happens very rarely, fourth hand really needs exactly that > information when he is looking at a 30-point hand - your tendency to > psyche will then increase his chances of finding a few points with > partner very much. > > But it is not only the hands on which you open that are interesting. > The percentage of third-hand non-opening hands that have 0-3 points is > low, but probably not extremely low (I'm too lazy to do the math). > > If you pass only 20% of those, your partner should definitely remember > to alert your third-hand passes and explain them as something like > "less than an opening hand, but almost never 0-3 points". This > information can be quite important, particularly in the play. > > Under the Danish systems rules, I would rule it a HUM system because > of its "strong" pass. This is not because I find your system in any > way problematic to defend against, but because the rules regulate > opening passes that show anything other than a strength interval > beginning at 0. Those rules may be unreasonably hard in this case - > but I believe that most HUM regulations are worded more or less like > that. This is precisely the point at which I came into this thread. Remember Grattan's five points. 1) This is partnership experience 2) This has to be disclosed 3) .. 4) This can be considered system 5) That 'system' might be subject to regulations. I agree that you might interpret the Danish regulations in this way. But that does in effect mean that the Danish regulations ban psyching. And they ban psyching only against 'honest' psychers, who disclose their tendencies. That is why I say that if the regulation is written or interpreted thus, it should be changed to allow for uncontrolled psyches. I am not attacking Danish regulations specifically here, as I am certain that all other regulations are equally worded. At least the Belgian ones are. But they should be changed ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 21:46:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:46:48 +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 VAA29913 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:46:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5305-8276>; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:45:43 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id NAA13809 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:24:11 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Swiss Teams and adjusted scores Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:23:41 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F392@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 In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883749032C@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Hi! >Round about a swiss team a question arised: > >During a swiss team, sth happens to a table and the TD adjusts the score >(say 2nd round). The tournament is over now and the offending team is >appealing the AC wants to change the score back to the table result. > >1st question: Makes it a difference for anyone, that the offending team >would have had better opps all the time due to the fact, that the swiss >team-pairings are a result of the scores before? If the appeal was handled before the next match, everything should be OK (this is of course the preferred method). But of course the appeal could be postponed until later, especially when matches are short. In that case it could be possible that different matches are scheduled due to differences in the score. I doubt that it will affect all teams, but there will be some differences with the teams hanging around the position of the two affected teams. Of course, it can never be proven what difference this has on the score of the affected teams. >2nd question: At the end of this swiss team event is a real final between >the 1st teams. Say there is a carryover which says VP´s more= IMP´s >advantage. So this will change as well because the AC decides to adjust the >score. Any effect in any way? This shouldn't have any effect at all. Any pending appeal should have been handled before the final is played. Imagine what would happen when, after playing the final, an appeal would cause a third team to become finalist. Therefore, every pending appeal must be handled before the final begins. And in that case, the carryover at the start of the final is the correct one, after all pending appeals have been handled. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 21:47:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA29927 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:47:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA05094 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 07:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 07:47:30 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. In-Reply-To: <000401beac4d$624b16a0$218b93c3@pacific> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > ++++ It must be understood that the fact you will never > make use of knowledge about your partner's psychic habits > does NOT absolve you from the absolute requirement to > share that knowledge with the world - and in particular your > opponents and the Director. ~ Grattan ~ > My most regular partner and I play a system that requires an Alert of opening 1-bids in ACBLand. We play about 50 boards a week together in a normal week (2 sessions). Some weeks it is far more than this. In the last five years he has, third seat, not vulnerable against vulnerable, opened 1S on a balanced 10-11 count and three spades about six times. I alert his bid. Next player asks. I say "4 or more spades. If he has only 4, he could have a longer minor. If he has more than 4, he is unlikely to have a minor as long as 4 cards." As I understand it, Grattan's position implies that I should add "Approximately once every hundred sessions or so, third seat white against red, he has done this on a balanced hand with a 3-card suit and about 10 points." I disagree. -- 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 Wed Jun 2 21:52:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA29954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:52:03 +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 VAA29949 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:51:56 +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 NAA26224; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:51:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199906021151.NAA26224@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, 2 Jun 1999 13:52:43 +0200 Subject: Re: Problem Ruling Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals CC: adam@irvine.com X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199906011651.JAA02556@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:05:35 PDT." <199906010904.LAA18798@hera.frw.uva.nl> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > > Anne Jones wrote: > > > > > I consider that Pass is LA. and rule 4S*= (It looks as though there are > > > 2 Hearts and a Club to lose.) > > > > I suppose West leads the heart ace (or king). > > IMO even a 'moderately competent' East player would now drop the > > heart queen, requesting a diamond switch. So 4S* is two down on > > two diamond ruffs. Adam wrote: > I don't know what the conventional defenses are where you live, but > the way I learned to play, if opening leader leads the ace or king > from A-K, and 3rd hand drops the queen, this promises the jack, and > either requests or suggests an underlead, depending on which books you > read. Suit preference *might* be the correct interpretation of the > queen on this particular hand. Well, to *me* it would be clear --snip--- > > I'm willing to bet that a fair number of experts would fail to beat > the contract two tricks--- --snip-- but then, I'm not an expert... JP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 22:35:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:35:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00315 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:35:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA18216 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:34:56 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Swiss Teams In-Reply-To: <374E7A5B.70DC12@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm sorry that this is somewhat delayed from the thread, but I have eventually got round to digging out my post to RGB from 3+ years ago on the subject. It is appended in very slightly edited form. The resulting post is very long. Sorry (but not very). Some misconceptions about Swiss teams need shooting down. 1. Swiss team events require short matches. Not true. There is no reason other than tradition that an event such as the Spingold could not be played as a Swiss of 64 board matches. It would (arguably) be fairer than a straight knockout. 2. Pairings get impossible for large numbers of rounds compared with the number of teams. Chess tournaments have often been run in 5 round sections of 10 players. This is a very _good_ size for a Swiss. Pairings are always possible and rarely unusual. In fact, it is perfectly possible to have a 10 team 9 round Swiss. Pairings are ALWAYS possible. (Why would you do that? Good question, but the British Ladies' Chess Championship one year had a "round robin" played as a Swiss. Why? Because the Conditions of Contest said it was going to be a Swiss, and since all Swiss pairings did was to randomise the round order, they stuck with it!) 3. You want roughly the same number of rounds that you need for a knockout. See the 1996 attachment. Matches go against form now and then. The more rounds the better. The theoretically ideal Swiss is indeed a round robin, and the closer you get to that the better. 4. Stratified Swisses are a reasonable idea. Not from the point of view of determining who is the best of the lower field. Positions in the middle of the table are fairly random, as the order you lose your matches in makes a vast difference to the quality of your oposition! Talk to me about my most recent ACBL Blue Ribbon qualification--achieved with a magnificent 37% in a stratified swiss. More study is needed as to what the theoretical requirements are for length of bridge swiss events to determine with reasonable accuracy the best n teams from C competitors. The nature of bridge is different from chess, especially with VP scoring. Why do we have Swiss events of insufficient length? Because it's a reasonable way of scheduling a team game for an unknown number of entrants in a fixed length of time, and people like the format. But please don't go blindly thinking that the format that turns up by accident (8 rounds, 30-150 teams)is competitively sound. There are some reasonable reasons to play a Swiss with a limited number of teams for a 3 or 4 session event. Maybe there is a desire to play long matches and also to play in all sessions. A knockout means that some teams only play one session. A round robin of three matches a session for ten teams means 10 or 12 board matches. ============================================== (The following was originally written in Jan 1996) LONGER SWISSES ARE BETTER THAN SHORTER SWISSES Henk Uiterwaal writes: >Richard Lighton wrote: > > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > >> Dennis Yovich writes: > > >>> I'd be interested in any suggestions from knowlegeable players and/or > >>> directors about the selection of an appropriate movement for a teams > >>> event. The event is a State Championship (in Australia), with > >>> approximately 26 teams, and we have 9 sessions available. > > >>> Prime consideration is equity, and of course player enjoyment!! > > >>> In the past we have tried incomplete round robins (seeding the field > >>> as fairly as possible, but this always has its critics, and you can > >>> only play short matches to fit it all in); Swiss (this is a problem as > >>> only 5 rounds are allowable for a field of this size, and players > >>> complain that they want to play against more teams - and we would have > >>> 4 sessions left). > > > I do not claim to be an expert on movements, and I have noted the > > "only 5 rounds are allowable" for a Swiss; but as one who has played > > in lots of chess tournaments (none recently), this seems to me to > > be an ideal situation for a Swiss of 9 rounds of 32 board matches > > with victory point scoring. Why the restriction to 5 rounds? (I assume > > something that needs changing in the Conditions) > >The idea behind a Swiss is to play as long (or as short) as necessary >to rank M teams from 1 to M, without playing a complete round robin. > >Suppose M=2^N. Assume that in ever round the strongest team with >a record of n wins, beats the weakest team with a record of n wins. >It is now relatively easy to see that after N rounds, the strongest >team will be on top, followed by the second strongest team, and so on. >If you would play another round, all that happens is that a strong team >plays a weaker team and nothing in the overall standings will change. > >In this case M=26, so N is about 5 (2^5=32). > >In practice, the seeding isn't perfect, teams with a record of n >wins are randomly matched against other teams with the same record, >upsets do occur and so on, so it will take a bit longer before the >rankings have stabilized but there will be a point where playing >another round won't add anything to what we already know about >the relative strength of the teams. > >In this case, 9 rounds of Swiss is too much, 6 or 7 rounds would, >IMHO, be fine. > 9 rounds of Swiss is barely sufficient! It has been moderately well established in the chess world that you need a LOT more than N rounds (2^N = number of competitors) to establish anything better than an overall winner in a win-draw-loss swiss, and that N+3 rounds is about right in a chess tournament if you are only interested in an overall winner. If you are interested in correct placings for more than the winner, there are several empirical formulae. One that works fairly well was devised by E. H. Blaske around 1960. His formula is: 14n = 10R - 3C +10 (ref: Letter from C. J. S. Purdy in British Chess Magazine, June 1961) where n is the number of places you are interested in, R is the number of rounds, and C is the number of competitors. so if you are interested in only the overall winner, you want 8.2 rounds for a 26 team event. Note, however, this formula is geared to a chess tournament, where a draw in a particular game is a moderately likely, and a game is far more likely to go in accordance with form than a bridge match is. Henk's assertion assumes that bridge matches will go in accordance with form. You only have to look at the results of something like a European championship or an Olympiad to see that this is incorrect. Things get even more interesting if you introduce a Victory Point scale. An example: In a Flight A Swiss at Kiamesha Lake NY in September 1995, there were only 18 teams entered. The team that won the 6 round event lost an early match to a team containing Berkowitz and Cohen by 18-2, and having dropped back into the pack worked their way up so that they played the team in 5th place in the last round. They won that match 19-1, and snuck past the teams that finished 2-3, who had a virtual tie with each other in the last round. The winning team never played either team that were 1 VP behind them. (They'll take their win, but they know they were lucky). The event needed two more rounds to get all the reasonable pairings in. Second Example: For the fun of it, I did a simulation of how a Swiss would have affected the 1991 European Championship. This was a round robin (I hope we can agree that this is the fairest form of event) of 26 teams. Great Britain won the real event fairly convincingly. For my simulation, I seeded the field based on the actual final standings. I used USCF pairing rules (seed 1 plays seed 14 in the first round, seed 13 plays seed 26 is the main point), and used as a result of the match what actually happened in the event (in my event, Great Britain played Turkey in Round 1 In the real event GBR beat TUR 16-14, so that was the result of this match in my event). The following is the standings after rounds 5 through 10 in my simulated Swiss. Real Sim Sim Sim Sim Sim Sim Posn Team Rd5 Rd6 Rd7 Rd8 Rd9 Rd10 1 GBR 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 SWE 5= 2 2 2 1 1 3 POL 8= 4 5 3 3 3 4 ICE 2 5= 7= 4= 4 5= 5 ITA 5= 3 3 10 10= 5= 6 NTH 12= 10= 16 13= 7= 7= 7 USR 8= 5= 7= 4= 12= 9 8 FRA 3 7 6 8 7= 10= 9 NOR 17 17 18 18 6 4 10 ISR 20= 19 19 11 10= 18 11 DEN 5= 8 4 12 12= 17 12 GER 11 10= 10 4= 5 12 13 HUN 18 18 23 22 22 20 14 TUR 16 20 20 13= 18= 19 15 IRE 19 16 9 9 7= 15= 16 AUT 10 9 11 17 17 7= 17 BEL 12= 15 13= 13= 18= 15= 18 FIN 17 10= 15 19 12= 14 19 GRE 23 23 21 21 24 21 20 POR 14 14 12 4= 12= 10= 21 SWI 4 13 13= 16 16 13 22 BUL 20= 21 22 24 23 24 23 CZE 22 22 17 20 21 23 24 SPA 24= 25 24 23 20 22 25 YUG 24= 26 26 25 25 25 26 LCH 26 24 25 26 26 26 Note that until round 7 or 8 things don't settle properly at the top of the table (I assume we are interested in who comes second or third) and that the lead did change in round 9. If you look at the matches "played," Sweden deserved to be in the lead at the end - they had played slightly stronger opposition than Great Britain and had done better. The matches not played in the simulation made a considerable difference. The main thing that can be noted from the Kiamesha Lake example and the simulation is that extra rounds do matter in a Swiss, and the closer you get to a complete round robin, the better. Also (and I think much more important) is that a Swiss is VERY poor at determining the standings of teams more than a few away from the first (and last) place. The order you lose your matches in makes a huge difference in the quality of your opposition! Please don't use a Swiss as a qualifying event if more than a couple of places matter! It's also questionable for overall masterpoint awards below about 3rd in a moderate size ACBL Regioanal Swiss, but that's a different story. -- 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 Wed Jun 2 22:41:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:41:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA00352 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:41:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA19865 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:40:57 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: RE: Swiss Teams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 29 May 1999, Jan Romanski wrote: > 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. > Not a very good idea for determining which is the best team on the day. It means that it is even more likely than in Swiss pairings that some team will zoom into the lead on the last round without playing some of the other teams in contention. -- 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 Wed Jun 2 22:55:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:55:04 +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 WAA00438 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:54:50 +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 10pAXT-0001Cv-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:54:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:51:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com> <006601beac6e$7915bb80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006601beac6e$7915bb80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Changing system because of a defense encountered, however, is >illegal, unethical, unfair, and unsportsmanlike. It may be illegal: well, it is so based on ACBL regulations. It is not clear why it is unethical, unless you mean to do it without letting oppos know: that would be unethical. But why is it unfair? OK, the ACBL make it illegal, but they also make other things illegal, some of which are permitted elsewhere in the world. It makes such things illegal, but not unfair. I do not see the logic that changing you system to meet the oppos' system is unfair, and I do not see it as unsportsmanlike. Incidentally, I have not commented much on this thread otherwise because I do not see the chicken-egg argument creates any difficulties whatever. You just find out what the initial actions mean: a decision has to be made. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 22:55:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:55:05 +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 WAA00440 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:54:51 +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 10pAXR-0001Ct-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:54:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:44:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Allowed" = "Correct procedure"? References: <37554eaf.4563772@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <37554eaf.4563772@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >And if it really is so, then it seems to me that the concept of >"correct procedure" has no meaning. Correct procedure is what should be done in an ideal state. Ideal states are rarely attained and thus correct procedure is often not followed, and failure to follow correct procedure is often tolerated. But we need to know what correct procedure is. ------ Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sun, 30 May 1999 11:15:56 +0200, Herman De Wael > 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". True, and they are not "allowed". They are tolerated. Perhaps they are treated _as though_ they were allowed. -- 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 Jun 2 22:55:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:55:04 +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 WAA00436 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:54:48 +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 10pAXS-0001Cw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:54:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:08:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Clear enough References: <4916b2ae.2484d337@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <4916b2ae.2484d337@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen wrote: >Grattan states: ><< I have seen two messages in this thread that > appear to claim that there is no partnership agreement > when partner is aware of a habitual violation >> >When this comes before an AC, I tell the players that before this occurrence >you had no agreement (benefit of the doubt) but after it you definitely have >an agreement about the kind of psyche partner may make and you must be aware >of your responsibilities henceforth. That is the point at which I *strongly* disagree: you are making a single occasion equivalent to habitual violations. It is this sort of instruction that leads many people on RGB and on BLML to believe that the ACBL is adopting a back-door method to outlawing psyches. A single occurrence does not provide an agreement and it would be wrong to disclose it. It makes the game a nonsense. It leads to stupidity, and spoils the game for many people. Suppose players follow your instructions. 2NT is opened. "What is that?" an opponent asks. "It shows 20 to 22 HCP, and a balanced hand. Mind you, he had 19 that time in Toledo, and I remember six years ago in San Francisco he had a singleton king. He did psyche a 2NT opening in Fresno, or was that my other partner, Bertha? I have the feeling that he was too strong for the range when we were playing together in the San Antonio big drinkers festival, but he claimed it was the seventh pint of home brewed beer that caused a miscount. In New York ...." No, Karen, a single occurrence does not produce an agreement. It is unnecessary and undesirable that players should disclose such agreements, and it is **very** important that ACs do not instruct them so to do: that is against the Laws of the game and is counter-productive 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 Jun 2 22:55:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:55:13 +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 WAA00459 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:55:04 +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 10pAXc-0001Cu-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:41:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Swiss Teams and adjusted scores References: <3.0.6.32.19990602103115.007d1550@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990602103115.007d1550@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> 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 WAA00460 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Hi! >Round about a swiss team a question arised: > >During a swiss team, sth happens to a table and the TD adjusts the score >(say 2nd round). The tournament is over now and the offending team is >appealing the AC wants to change the score back to the table result. > >1st question: Makes it a difference for anyone, that the offending team >would have had better opps all the time due to the fact, that the swiss >team-pairings are a result of the scores before? No, that is just an acceptable effect of the strange rule in bridge that allows appeals! There is no need to worry about the change in scores affecting pairings. A good SO should have a regulation saying so. >2nd question: At the end of this swiss team event is a real final between >the 1st teams. Say there is a carryover which says VP´s more= IMP´s >advantage. So this will change as well because the AC decides to adjust the >score. Any effect in any way? The effect of the appeal should be included in the carryover. It is part of the teams score. -- 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 Jun 2 22:55:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:55:22 +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 WAA00464 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:55:10 +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 10pAXT-000G20-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:54:37 +0000 Message-ID: <2s886YA4PSV3EwJK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:30:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Problem Ruling References: <01beac1d$9c921140$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <00ca01beacac$517ab060$9ae57ad1@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <00ca01beacac$517ab060$9ae57ad1@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >From: Anne Jones >> After thoughts:- I am certainly ruling this back to 4S*. >As a table ruling, I agree. Somewhere there are players who would consider >passing 4S*. Accordingly, it is an LA, at least by ACBL standards. 5C is >suggested over pass by the table action accompanying the double, so 4S* it >is. As a TD, I don't see that I have a choice here. Since the conditions set in the problem is that it is in the UK and the LA standard is 30%, I don't see whether it is an LA by ACBL standards is helpful. I think it is an interesting problem. My instinct, in line with Anne and Kojak, is that we should adjust to keep the game honest. However, I am far from convinced that three in ten players would sit for the double. In the ACBL, adjustment is automatic. In most of the rest of the world which uses a 25% or 30% standard, I am tempted not to adjust. However, I consider it close enough that I would adjust as a TD, but might easily overturn myself [!] as an AC. That at least gets the head- shakers to push it through an AC if they want to keep their score. -------- Julie Atkinson wrote: >With this type of problem I always ask myself if the double had been made >decisively would the partner have moved?. I think it is clear that 5C would >rarely be bid, that it is demonstrably suggested by the actions of the >doubler and therefore revert to 4S going 2 light. Good point: so I ask myself, would a decisive double be removed? The trouble is that I answer, yes, probably. -------- Anne Jones wrote: >After thoughts:- I am certainly ruling this back to 4S*. >Now if E/W were able to convince me that the defence >would be AH, Dx- ruff, Hx to HK, >Dx - ruff.I would award a split score:- >Most favourable result likely to N/S is 4S*= >Most unfavourable result probable is E/W= 4S* - 2 >N/S +590 >E/W +300 A score that is "likely" is more likely to occur than one that is "at all probable". If "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" is 4S*= then "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" is going to be at least that to N/S, and possibly more. so if N/S receive +590, E/W cannot do better than -590 under L12C2. If you consider that one time in ten, E/W are likely to let a trick get away, then that is "at all probable" but not "likely" [European not ACBL interpretations] so you rule: N/S +590 , ie NS+590 E/W -690 , ie NS+690 -- 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 Jun 2 22:55:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:55:03 +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 WAA00433 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:54:45 +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 10pAXP-0001Ct-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:54:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:39:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Inadvertancy References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1B6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1B6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >Th big question, in my opinion,is: do want want to allow players to change a >legal call or play under certain circumstances. The present answer on that >question is: yes. I personally am in favour of upholding that approach. If >we do we have to live with the problems arising from it. I believe that acceptability is important. Do you think that someone who takes the wrong call out of the box, looks at it, realises it is wrong, and changes it before it goes on the table, should be allowed to change it? Well, I did it twice last night, and half a dozen times over the weekend. There was never any thought of calling the Director, and never any suggestion I should do anything but change it. In this common situation, L25A is completely acceptable and is accepted. To delete it now would cause a lot of aggravation. I believe we need L25A with bidding boxes. Thus there seems a reasonable case to be made to allow other changes as well. >There is another less principle approach: since it appears to be impossible >to apply laws when making the choice to allow these changes,even under well >described circumstances, we better don't allow it (I didn't come to that >conclusion yet). It is not true that there are difficulties applying these Laws. Despite Steve's assertions about L25A and L45C4B they are *easy* to apply and rarely cause any problems to players, TDs or ACs. On this list we often discuss exceptional positions and strange cases: this should not blind us to the norm, and the norm is that these Laws are acceptable, accepted, and easily applied. Mind-reading is not a problem. Perhaps there might be some consideration given by the Lawmakers to widening the scope of permitted changes. Inconsistent Laws do sometimes annoy, and some people see an inconsistency between an inadvertent card that is 'designated' for play, and one that is 'played'. Should both be retractable? The Lawmakers might also like to clear up the time limits. They correctly added "until partner calls" to L25A: they might add "until partner plays" to L45C4B, and also consider hands in L25A where partner never calls again: perhaps "until partner calls or until the opening lead is face-down, whichever is earlier" in L25A. But we do not want to get rid of two Laws which work pretty well, and in the case of L25A is well-known. A few small problems in rare situations is not a reason to get rid of them. -------- >Van: J Atkinson [mailto:jatkinsn@ihug.co.nz] >I agree that inadvertancy can be hard to rule, but generally players are >forthcoming about why they have made a particular bid. Perhaps the best >determination I have seen is Grattan and Endicotts ..."slip of the mind" (I >hope I have that right :)) >What the mind intended the pen didnt write. I find this a good guide. Inadvertency is usually very easy to rule. It is only in exceptional cases that there is a problem. -- 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 Jun 2 23:05:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:05:32 +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 XAA00574 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:05:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:02:15 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990602150231.007cb100@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, 02 Jun 1999 15:02:31 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: Swiss Teams and adjusted scores In-Reply-To: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F392@xion.spase.nl> References: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883749032C@xion.spase.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id XAA00575 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:23 02.06.99 +0200, Martin Sinot wrote: Hi martin! Thanks for your answers here are some further questions: >Richard Bley wrote: >>Hi! >>Round about a swiss team a question arised: >> >>During a swiss team, sth happens to a table and the TD adjusts the score >>(say 2nd round). The tournament is over now and the offending team is >>appealing the AC wants to change the score back to the table result. >> >>1st question: Makes it a difference for anyone, that the offending team >>would have had better opps all the time due to the fact, that the swiss >>team-pairings are a result of the scores before? > >If the appeal was handled before the next match, everything should be OK >(this is of course the preferred method). But of course the appeal could >be postponed until later, especially when matches are short. In that case >it could be possible that different matches are scheduled due to differences >in the score. I doubt that it will affect all teams, but there will be some >differences with the teams hanging around the position of the two affected >teams. Of course, it can never be proven what difference this has on the >score of the affected teams. hmmm. What will happen if you are at the AC according to L93C TBR (national AC)? When you adjust the score nothing can be done to prevent this problem. > >>2nd question: At the end of this swiss team event is a real final between >>the 1st teams. Say there is a carryover which says VP´s more= IMP´s >>advantage. So this will change as well because the AC decides to adjust the >>score. Any effect in any way? > >This shouldn't have any effect at all. Any pending appeal should have been >handled before the final is played. Imagine what would happen when, after >playing the final, an appeal would cause a third team to become finalist. >Therefore, every pending appeal must be handled before the final begins. >And in that case, the carryover at the start of the final is the correct >one, after all pending appeals have been handled. > Well same problem. What will happen if the national authority AC decides the case. Is the trustness into the score a fact which should be considered b handling the problem if the score should be adjusted? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 2 23:21:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA00658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:21:55 +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 XAA00653 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:21:44 +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 JAA09749 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990602092150.006e900c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 09:21:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530276B5@MAIL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:41 PM 6/1/99 -0400, Richard wrote: >I stated that players must assign a meaning to specific bids. >I never claimed that these meanings were constrained to "pure >strategies". > >{In the nomenclature of Game Theory, a pure strategy is one specific >action that players will always follow. >In contrast, a mixed strategy uses a probability density function to >randomize between a set of pure strategies} > >I'll use a familiar example. [example snipped] >A possible mixed strategy would be > >Bid 5D 80% of the time >Bid 4D 5% of the time >Bid 6D 5% of the time >Bid 3N 5% of the time >Pass 5% of the time > >I see nothing wrong with following either of the two strategies >described. >Personally, however, I'd probably use the mixed strategy since I think >it is likely to work better in the long run. >(I distinctly don't like to have a predictable style of bidding) > >(Note, to reference another thread occurring on this list - the concept >of a mixed strategy might be useful in attempt to define a psyche.) I recognize the legitimacy of mixed strategies, but they are a red herring here. The issue is under what circumstances you may alter your bidding strategy -- be it pure or mixed -- as a function of whom your opponents are or what their methods are. >With respect to your point about table feel. >I also don't see anything wrong with adjusting one's probabilities >slightly to compensate for "table feel" or the fact that RHO is a rank >novice. >However, I consider these choices to be fundamentally different than >using information about what defensive methods the opponents might use. I don't see how we can call these "fundamentally different" when they may be indistinguishable at the table. It goes P-P-1NT(10-12)-X(one-suiter)-?. With my 5 HCP, I know we're in deep s--t. I could try to scramble, but my table feel tells me that my LHO is about to bid something, so I pass smoothly and, sure enough, he bids and gets me off the hook. Is it my responsibility, before choosing to pass (when I might have taken a bid against different opponents), to decide whether my LHO is about to make his ill-advised bid because he's a novice and doesn't know any better, or because his methods call for it? I can't accept that my pass is legitimate in the first case but an infraction in the second. >As I mentioned before in an earlier post. >There are two possible formats that one can use to model a "game" like >bridge bidding and avoid the "Chicken and the Egg" problem. >One format is to set up a game of simultaneous disclosure wherein each >side simultaneously discloses their complete bidding system. >The second format is to design an iterative game in which each side >discloses the meanings of bids in sequence. > >However, either format requires certain behavior on the part of >individual players. >The simultaneous move game requires that players NOT change any of their >strategies (either pure or mixed) in response to the opponent's >selection. >In the case of the sequential move game it requires that players >accurately disclose the meanings of their bids. > >This type of example is very easy for people to understand in the case >of a game with that has a discrete strategies like "Paper, Rocks, >Scissors" or matching pennies. In the case of bridge where a continuous >interval like hand evaluation is a function for the strategy space, the >issues apparently become more difficult to visualize. > >But the logic is precisely the same. Back in the bad old days, partnerships who had been playing together for 30 years and knew every nuance of one another's bidding believed they were entitled to respond to an opponent's inquiry about a bid with "we've never discussed it" just because that was the literal truth. So the ACBL (I think they came up with it, but I'm not positive) interpreted the disclosure rules to cover "implicit agreements". I suspect that what they originally had in mind were what I'll call "systemic agreements" -- I can't define these precisely, but they are the sorts of agreements that one is likely to discuss in a less-than-well-established partnership, that one puts on a CC. To folks (like myself) who believe in interpreting "full disclosure" broadly, it made perfect sense to apply the "implicit agreement" concept to more than systemic agreements, i.e. to minor variations in style or tendencies in judgment, which should be subject to full disclosure as well. And so it does -- in the context of the disclosure rules; these should be disclosed if known, whether known from explicit agreement or from observation and experience. But neither the laws nor the ACBL clearly distinguish systemic agreements from stylistic or judgmental variations. If the latter are implicit agreements, they are agreements; they can't be agreements for disclosure purposes but not be agreements for other purposes, such as applying L40A, L40D, L40E1, L75B or L75D. What we are seeing now are the consequences of taking an interpretation -- stylistic or judgmental tendencies can be subject to implicit agreement -- designed for application in a particular context -- full disclosure -- and applying it in contexts for which it was not designed and into which it doesn't fit comfortably. Richard sensibly addresses the resolution of the chicken-and-egg problem. But the problem here is that it feels wrong to think of a systemic agreement and the stylistic idiosyncracies or judgmental tendencies that develop around those agreements as chicken and egg -- we've got a chicken that can produce eggs, but an egg that can't produce chickens. They're not the same thing. What's needed is some formalization of the distinction between systemic agreements, which we wish to constrain, and stylistic or judgmental tendencies, which we do not (or should not) wish to constain and, as a practical matter, really can't even if we wanted to. It does irreparable harm to the game to tell players that they are not free to develop their own styles around their agreements or to use their judgment in determining their calls and plays. If I want to play 10-12 NTs against pairs playing artificial doubles and 15-17 NTs against pairs playing penalty doubles, and my opponents play penalty doubles against 10-12 NTs and artificial doubles against 15-17 NTs, that's chicken-and-egg, and Richard's suggested resolution is entirely appropriate. But if I play light preempts, and need to decide whether to open 3H this time on x/Qxxxxx/xx/Jxxx, I must be allowed, in exercising my judgment to select my call, to take into account whether my opponents are playing takeout doubles or Weiss -- the parenthetical in L40E1 makes this clear; my SO cannot require me to make the same call every time I hold this hand. It is not the same thing as the first case at all. If we look closely at L40E1, we find that it does indeed make the distinction we need, between "method" and "style and judgment". This distinction is not defined anywhere (nor, unless I've missed something, even mentioned elsewhere in the laws), but does give us a "hook" on which to hang a reasonable approach to the issue at hand. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 01:54:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:54:40 +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 BAA03718 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:54:23 +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 10pDLG-00096t-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:54:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:03:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Swiss Teams References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard lighton wrote: > >On Sat, 29 May 1999, Jan Romanski wrote: > >> 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. >> >Not a very good idea for determining which is the best team on the day. >It means that it is even more likely than in Swiss pairings that some >team will zoom into the lead on the last round without playing some >of the other teams in contention. > Why? If you stick to normal Swiss rules, and your numbers are too small, the last round might be 1v7, 2v8, etc. I won the Isle of Man teams this way about twenty years ago: we were in the lead with one match to go and that was all that mattered. If we had used the Polish system, the last round might have been 1v2, 3v6, 4v5, etc, which would have been far better. If you have enough teams for the number of rounds, play Swiss. If you have not, then you should consider an alternative. Danish is reasonably fair, but if the number is too small will probably upset teams: they will not like playing each other in consecutive matches. Polish seems an admirable alternative: in fact my computer program offers it to me if it does not like the assigning! -- 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 Jun 3 02:24:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:24:07 +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 CAA03998 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:24:00 +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 JAA19201 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <017801bead14$292e3d80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:16:40 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal 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 an initial action, a conflict exists. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? In attempting to solve this problem, others will be encountered. After absorbing some helpful comments from Steve Willner and others, and doing more thinking, I have revised these tentative conclusions and recommendations, which I will pass on to the Competitions and Conventions Committee through Gary Blaiss of the ACBL, if there is a measure of agreement with them among the knowledgeable. Comments needed, but please be specific, use quotes to identify the language you don't like, and snip appropriately to reduce length. Let's start with the current ACBL regulations: ########## 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. ######### (1) In the absence of definitions for "system," "methods," and "defense," I suggest these: "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. (The reference to "methods" becomes redundant and can be dropped, as it apparently was in No.5.) "Defense" is an action that counters an opposing convention or method, with the aim of making it less effective. In general, a defensive action comes after the action it is countering, but not always. When the convention or method being countered is a closely related combination of calls (e.g., a weak notrump bidding system), a defensive measure against one of the calls may precede the call, but a defense is not a defense under this definition if it precedes the entire combination. Also, it is possible to have a defense against a defense, provided it is a subsequent action, not a preceding one. (2) Regulation 1. should make clear that the TD will not permit changing or dropping a convention if the reason has anything to do with some defensive measure a pair is encountering. The only justification I can think of is that a pair cannot remember a convention properly ("convention disruption") and requiring them to retain it would be detrimental to the game. They can't drop or revise a convention just because it isn't producing good results. (3) Regulation 1., "a session of play" should be changed to "an event." It is unfair for a pair to play different systems vs different opponents in the same event, even if the event spans several sessions of play. This does not apply to knockout team events, in which changing system between knockout rounds, or changing system at a time when team composition can be changed, should be permitted. It also should be permissible to change a system during a knockout match with the opponents' permission, not just the TD's. (4) Regulation 5. should permit the adoption of a defense against an opposing method that is not discovered until after the round or session starts, not just at the beginning. The words "against their.conventional calls and preempts" should be changed to "against their methods." It should also make clear that any such changes must be used vs all opposing pairs who use a method indentical to the one being countered, and that adopting a defense vs a defense does not constitute an illegal variance of system. It sometimes happens that pre-examination of the opposing cc does not uncover a method for which a defense is necessary, and it should be permissible to devise one at the time it becomes known. 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 vs a particular action, the spirit of these regulations is that the same defense must be used vs all pairs employing that identical action. (5) A pair must bid and play according to their system, except for changes permitted by Regulations 1. and 5. and deviations permitted by L40A. 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. Modifying the degree of aggressiveness or conservatism connected with making any call is appropriate for reasons of opponents' skill levels, state of score, "table feel," etc., but not for reasons connected with the defensive measures being used vs the call. It is permissible to make a call that violates system, however, if it is not based on a partnership understanding (L40A). (6) Conditional initial actions that depend on defenses against them are not permitted. Conditions such as "light overcalls vs negative doubles, sound overcalls vs penalty doubles" are tantamount (sorry, David) to changing system according to an opposing cc, which is permitted for defensive actions only. (7) 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 same methods. ----------------------------------------------------------- A related problem concerns disclosure. If a pair employs a method that involves a closely related combination of actions, the opponents must know about the entire combination before making their first call after the combination begins. For instance, if a pair has an understanding that passing a redouble of their takeout double indicates a desire to play the redoubled contract (Alertable), the opponents should be made aware of this beforehand, so they can prepare a possible "defense" (e.g., no redoubling with a void in partner's suit) vs the potential (Alertable) business pass, which in itself is a defense vs non-serious redoubles. Another thread, perhaps, but not from me. Another problem is that all details of a system are not on the cc, or perhaps some are not be plainly shown, and the opponents may feel the need for some new defensive measure when they encounter an unexpected Alerted method during the auction. That too will have to be a different thread. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 02:44:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:44:15 +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 CAA04084 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:44:08 +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 JAA21223 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <019c01bead16$f9d00d40$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:33:39 -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 Richard Lighton wrote: > In the last five years he has, third seat, not vulnerable against > vulnerable, opened 1S on a balanced 10-11 count and three spades > about six times. > > I alert his bid. Next player asks. I say > "4 or more spades. If he has only 4, he could have a longer minor. > If he has more than 4, he is unlikely to have a minor as long as > 4 cards." > > As I understand it, Grattan's position implies that I should add > > "Approximately once every hundred sessions or so, third seat white > against red, he has done this on a balanced hand with a 3-card suit > and about 10 points." > > I disagree. > Me too, if ballots are being counted. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 03:24:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 03:24:36 +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 DAA04283 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 03:24:25 +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 KAA25166 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01ac01bead1c$98eb4e80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com><006601beac6e$7915bb80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 10:17:39 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Changing system because of a defense encountered, however, is > >illegal, unethical, unfair, and unsportsmanlike. > > It may be illegal: well, it is so based on ACBL regulations. Right. >It is > not clear why it is unethical, unless you mean to do it without letting > oppos know: that would be unethical. Since it is against ACBL regulation, knowing this and sneaking it in is unethical, whether or not the opponents know about it. > > But why is it unfair? > I do not see the logic that changing your system to meet the oppos' > system is unfair, and I do not see it as unsportsmanlike. Not exactly the theme here. Changing or adopting defenses to meet the opposing system's methods is okay, but not vice-versa Why unfair and unsportsmanlike? Because players go to a lot of trouble to prepare defenses against certain methods, and if they don't get to use them they have wasted their time. Some pairs go around the room bidding extra-light preempts or notrumps, gaining many points from the weak, and then when they come up against someone who knows how to rip them, they want to change system? Not fair, and not sporting, IMO. They should be willing to take the bad with the good. > OK, the ACBL make it illegal, but they also > make other things illegal, some of which are permitted elsewhere in the > world. It makes such things illegal, but not unfair. Agree with that in general, but not in this case. Ahem, that things are permitted elsewhere does not necessarily make them fair. > >Incidentally, > I have not commented much on this thread otherwise because I do not see > the chicken-egg argument creates any difficulties whatever. You just > find out what the initial actions mean: a decision has to be made. > I assume you mean that the initial actors have to declare first when there is a conflict. The trouble is that opponents may not have anticipated every conditional initial action they might enounter, and do not have a defense in place for one. Now there is no conflict, and the initial actors get to do what they want. Or, if you say the opponents can now adopt a defense to counter that, again the initial actors have to declare first. The upshot is that initial actions cannot have effective conditions that depend on defenses, because this choice can always be nullified by smart opponents. Since that is true, why not protect less knowledgeable pairs, and outlaw conditional initial actions that depend on opposing defenses? That is what the ACBL regulation does, and it seems reasonable. I am restating the Chicken and Egg problem in an upcoming message, and perhaps it will become more palatable, at least to ACBLers. It will be cross-posted to RGB, and maybe should have been just RGB since it is an ACBL subject. However, I think it might be of general interest elsewhere, and I don't want to miss the opinions of wise BLMLers, international or ACBL, who may not be active on RGB. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 03:42:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 03:42:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.pl (home.pl [195.205.230.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA04407 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 03:41:49 +1000 (EST) From: jfr@post.pl Message-Id: <199906021741.DAA04407@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from home.pl (HELO localhost) (195.205.230.32) by home.pl with SMTP; 2 Jun 1999 17:42:01 -0000 Subject: RE: Swiss Teams Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mime-version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 19:42 +0100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard lighton: > Jan Romanski: >> 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 be predefined number of rounds (say 2 or 3) >> between meetings. TD should keep track of tournament. Our computer >> program can do it as well. >> >Not a very good idea for determining which is the best team on the >day. It means that it is even more likely than in Swiss pairings that >some team will zoom into the lead on the last round without playing >some of the other teams in contention. > Try to play such an event and you see that it is not true. The exception appears when a team wins very high last matches. But it may happen in Swiss and in Italian as well. The problem with Swiss is that in the last rounds strong teams have to play against random, relatively weaker teams, not against each other. I think the best idea is to play Swiss (or Polish mentioned above if the number of teams is small) and switch to Italian for the last two rounds. And finally: IMO there is no _best_ or _only_ solution for evening teams tournament. Every way has its advantages and disadvantages. May be TD should try in her or his club few methods and concern such factors as - do they like it ? - is it comprehensible for them ?(not too many questions on regulations) Jan Romanski From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 04:05:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 04:05:43 +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 EAA04578 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 04:05:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-156-161.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.161]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA23151 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37557327.50DF40B4@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 11:08:39 -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: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) References: <017801bead14$292e3d80$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: > > 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 an initial action, a conflict > exists. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? In attempting to > solve this problem, others will be encountered. > We have been through this before, and I am nearly alone on this, but here goes: Very briefly: I believe that you should be permitted to have advance defenses to conventional calls. If they play a conventional takeout double vs. preempts, play weaker preempts, for instance. Some of these seem obvious: Suppose a pair plays a double of 1NT to show a light, shaped hand of some sort. Clearly, this measure works well only when the opponents promise never to psych against it. An agreement to frequently bid 1NT on unsound values at favorable or 3rd seat or both seems appropriate, otherwise the convention gains substantially more than it ought to. I think advance defenses to conventional calls should be allowed. Advance defenses to natural calls should not be allowed; in that case first call wins. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 05:10:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 05:10:53 +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 FAA04877 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 05:10:46 +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 MAA05170 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <020a01bead2b$7362b400$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <017801bead14$292e3d80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <37557327.50DF40B4@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:09:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote:> > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > 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 an initial action, a conflict > > exists. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? In attempting to > > solve this problem, others will be encountered. > > > > We have been through this before, and I am nearly alone on this, but > here goes: You are not alone, because the estimable Danny Kleinman, for one, has the same opinion, as expressed to me in a recent letter (he receives e-mail, but cannot send). It is a very natural opinion, since in nearly every game or sport one can imagine, changing offense to match defense is the normal thing to do. > I believe that you should be permitted to have advance defenses to > conventional calls. If they play a conventional takeout double vs. > preempts, play weaker preempts, for instance. But what if they play optional doubles against weaker preempts? That's the main problem addressed here. Who has to declare first? I think the consensus has been that the initial bidder must go first, which means that a conditional defense will nullify the possible benefits of whatever conditions the initial bidder could have. > > Some of these seem obvious: Suppose a pair plays a double of 1NT to show > a light, shaped hand of some sort. Clearly, this measure works well only > when the opponents promise never to psych against it. An agreement to > frequently bid 1NT on unsound values at favorable or 3rd seat or both > seems appropriate, otherwise the convention gains substantially more > than it ought to. But then they will change their defense vs 1NT, and there you are back to square one. > > I think advance defenses to conventional calls should be allowed. > Advance defenses to natural calls should not be allowed; in that case > first call wins. Don't see any merit in this complication. A defense is a defense, conventional or not shouldn't matter. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 06:57:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 06:57:02 +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 GAA05295 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 06:56:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from griffon (ppp06.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.106]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA26988 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:56:21 +0300 (EEST) Message-Id: <199906022056.XAA26988@hunter2.int.kiev.ua> From: "Kapustin Sergey " To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Swiss Teams Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:51:48 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1154 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > richard lighton: > > Jan Romanski: > >> 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 be predefined number of rounds (say 2 or 3) > >> between meetings. TD should keep track of tournament. Our computer > >> program can do it as well. > >> > >Not a very good idea for determining which is the best team on the > >day. It means that it is even more likely than in Swiss pairings that > >some team will zoom into the lead on the last round without playing > >some of the other teams in contention. > > > > Try to play such an event and you see that it is not true. The exception > appears when a team wins very high last matches. But it may happen in Swiss > and in Italian as well. > The problem with Swiss is that in the last rounds strong teams have to play > against random, relatively weaker teams, not against each other. I think > the best idea is to play Swiss (or Polish mentioned above if the number > of teams is small) and switch to Italian for the last two rounds. > And finally: IMO there is no _best_ or _only_ solution for evening teams > tournament. Every way has its advantages and disadvantages. May be TD > should try in her or his club few methods and concern such factors as > - do they like it ? > - is it comprehensible for them ?(not too many questions on regulations) > > Jan Romanski In Ukraine we play the last 2 or 3 rounds as in Poland, but we protect the first two tables from very high wins on the third table. Usually awards in each of these rounds are 2 VP for the both teams on the first table and 1 VP for the both teams on the second. I think it is comprehensible for contestants. By the way, I know that Jan's program also do it very well. Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 07:01:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:01:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05313 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:00:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA06356 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990602165839.00819c20@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 16:58:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Psyches Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am currently rereading an old (1936) bridge book. The bidding is anything but mainstream 90's bridge. But, the really fascinating (to me) thing about the book is the difference in attitudes about certain bidding tactics including psyches. One example: South holds AQx KTxxx KQx AJ and hears partner open 1S and RHO overcall 2C. The recommended action is 3H. It is explained thusly: "I have reason to believe you have a delicate hand. Please pay no attention to the non-vulnerable bidding of our opponents, even tho I don't succeed in silencing them by this bid, as no danger lurks in the opening, however shaded." Two hearts, if North and South not vulnerable, to allow for a psyche. What struck me here is the allowance for a possible psyche from partner. Is this legal? And, does it matter what the attitude of the times was regarding psyches? In 1936 it was definitely general bridge knowledge that any opening bid might be a psyche, that's just the way brodge was played. In other words, the psyche would come as no more of a surprise to the opponents than it would to South. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 07:03:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:03:55 +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 HAA05331 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:03:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id QAA22050 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:04:27 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906022104.QAA22050@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:04:27 -0500 (CDT) Reply-To: cfgcs@eiu.edu 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 S [*] wrote: > > > 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. > > Why is everyone talking about equity? Equity does not come into it. People are trying to find a legal means to give declarer more than one trick. The one that seems obvious to try is L64C, arguing that declarer has been 'insufficiently compensated for damage caused'. I think that's what most of us have been abbreviating 'equity'. > The line stated in effect gave declarer either one or two bonus > tricks, and most people are happy to give revoker the benefit of the > doubt. It feels unfair to me to give the benefit of any doubt to the > offenders: that's all that I object to. a) But in this case the 'non-offenders' are also the side that has made the concession[/claim]. We are not giving the offenders the benefit of the doubt _qua offenders_, we are giving them the benefit of the doubt _qua_ acquiescing side. b) I don't feel sorry for the declarer just because he didn't get a 'bonus trick'. Again, the laws are not primarily designed to punish offenders, but to restore equity. Equity has been restored. Why strain to look for a law that will allow us to punish the revoke for an extra trick beyond any damage that was done? I, personally, don't _like_ the two-trick penalty for cases where it is obvious that the revoke cannot have cost two tricks. I recognize that it is law, though, and apply it as necessary. But I do not strain to apply it, and I certainly don't see that we should re-write claim law just so as to be able to apply the two-trick penalty more often! > [*] I have had complaints from writing Christian names only here: please > could people arrange to have Reply-To addresses in their emails so the > problem does not occur? My software doesn't do this for me, and I'm not sure how to get it to turn out right for you manually. But, in any case, I hereby go on record as allowing anyone who wishes to use any version of my name they see fit, even obscene ones if I have annoyed them sufficiently. :) > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 07:30:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:30:12 +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 HAA05420 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:30:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip165.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.165]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990602212956.EXFC7381.fep2@ip165.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:29:56 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Inadvertancy Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 23:29:54 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3759a227.3359620@post12.tele.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1B6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> 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 HAA05421 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 12:39:02 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > But we do not want to get rid of two Laws which work pretty well, and >in the case of L25A is well-known. A few small problems in rare >situations is not a reason to get rid of them. That is correct. I find L25A just fine, except for the problem that some players (including me) often need a "pause for thought" to realize that they are in a L25A situation. If the requirement for "no pause for thought" was removed from L25A, there would IMO be no problem with L25A at all. And that requirement is not necessary - it should be up to the TD to judge whether a pause is an indication that the call was not really inadvertent, which is what matters. The inadvertancy determination has never in my experience been a practical problem. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 08:12:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:12:09 +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 IAA05601 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:12:02 +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 PAA22602 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:11:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <023901bead44$c1c754c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.5.32.19990602165839.00819c20@maine.rr.com> Subject: Re: Psyches Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:10:39 -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 Tim Goodwin wrote: > I am currently rereading an old (1936) bridge book. The bidding is > anything but mainstream 90's bridge. But, the really fascinating (to me) > thing about the book is the difference in attitudes about certain bidding > tactics including psyches. One example: > > South holds AQx KTxxx KQx AJ and hears partner open 1S and RHO overcall 2C. > The recommended action is 3H. It is explained thusly: > > "I have reason to believe you have a delicate hand. Please > pay no attention to the non-vulnerable bidding of our opponents, > even tho I don't succeed in silencing them by this bid, as no > danger lurks in the opening, however shaded." Two hearts, if > North and South not vulnerable, to allow for a psyche. > > What struck me here is the allowance for a possible psyche from partner. > Is this legal? And, does it matter what the attitude of the times was > regarding psyches? In 1936 it was definitely general bridge knowledge that > any opening bid might be a psyche, that's just the way brodge was played. > In other words, the psyche would come as no more of a surprise to the > opponents than it would to South. > Dorothy Rice Sims, who popularized psychic bidding, wrote in P. Hal Sims *Money Contract* book, 1932, as follows: "The most frequently employed psychic is the third hand weakness bid....Presumably your partner's hand is not powerful enough to induce him to land you in serious trouble, especially as nowadays automatic courtesy (I prefer the word "suspicion") is generally accorded any opening bid in this position." No doubt the opponents were equally suspicious. She ended the chapter on psychics with this story: A Lady Sucker opened 2C, which her partner passed. Mr Sims, in fourth seat, turned to LS and asked, "What system do you use?" "The forcing, she replied, "my partner *must* keep my two bids open." Sims almost stumbled getting out of the way to pass. But when the hand was over and the declarer, struggling, barely managed to make two clubs, she turned to Sims, who could have normally bid and made game on the hand. Seeing the look of anguish on his face, she queried softly: "You bid psychics too, don't you, Mr. Sims?" Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 08:19:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:19:59 +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 IAA05637 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:19:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem37.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.37] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10pJMK-0001DS-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:19:40 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Marketplace Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:57:01 +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@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) > Date: 02 June 1999 18:17 > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >> > Agree with that in general, but not in this case. Ahem, that things are > permitted elsewhere does not necessarily make them fair. +++++ The term 'fair' is a somewhat mystical expression to use, all things are fair if they conform to the laws. Opinion may say some are not desirable, the laws will make some things illegal, but playing under known conditions of contest we have no grounds to describe as unfair things provided for in those conditions to which our participation indicates consent. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 08:20:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:20:01 +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 IAA05638 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:19:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem37.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.37] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10pJML-0001DS-00; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:19:41 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:14:33 +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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Your damned nonsense can I stand twice or once, but sometimes always, by God, never!" - Hans Richter at rehearsal. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Clear enough > Date: 02 June 1999 13:08 > > Karen wrote: > >Grattan states: > ---------------------\x/--------------------- > A single occurrence does not provide an agreement and it would be > wrong to disclose it. ------------------- \x/ ---------------------- > ++++ A single occurrence does not furnish the partnership with experience of "habitual violations" which is the level of partnership experience set in Law 75B for the establishment of an implicit agreement. If I fall asleep once during the speeches at a prizegiving I do not have a habit of falling asleep on such riveting occasions. Of course, give me time and I could develop the habit. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 08:20:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:20:02 +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 IAA05641 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:19:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem37.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.37] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10pJMO-0001DS-00; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:19:44 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:14:16 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan ----------------------------------------------------------------- "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 Mailing List > Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. > Date: 02 June 1999 17:33 > > Richard Lighton wrote: > > > In the last five years he has, third seat, not vulnerable against > > vulnerable, opened 1S on a balanced 10-11 count and three spades > > about six times. > > > > I alert his bid. Next player asks. I say > > "4 or more spades. If he has only 4, he could have a longer minor. > > If he has more than 4, he is unlikely to have a minor as long as > > 4 cards." > > > > As I understand it, Grattan's position implies that I should add > > > > "Approximately once every hundred sessions or so, third seat white > > against red, he has done this on a balanced hand with a 3-card suit > > and about 10 points." > > > > I disagree. > > > Me too, if ballots are being counted. ++++ I really must learn to speak the language. About every third word I have contributed on the subject has been 'habit' or 'habitual'. To me such reference is not to conditions in which the partner will not have any thought it could be a psychic. Someone has to make the judgement when that line is crossed; I have said one prior occasion is not enough: I then recognize that regulating authorities will properly give guidance on the question and I have avoided committing myself here to an actual evaluation. But I am convinced the judgement is to do with the point at which the partner of a psycher becomes conscious the latter has a psyching habit and at which point, therefore, it is unlawful to conceal his awareness. 'Habit', I think, intends a partiality for some particular style of psychic, or some particular situation in the auction liable to trigger his psychics, or again such a frequency of psyching in general as to create in the partner a pervasive distrust of the genuineness of the first player's calls. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 09:15:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:15:34 +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 JAA05869 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:15:28 +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 QAA00274 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <027a01bead4d$9f3832e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Marketplace Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:12:46 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 1:57 PM Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Marketplace > 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@octavia.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) > > Date: 02 June 1999 18:17 > > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > >> > > Agree with that in general, but not in this case. Ahem, that things are > > permitted elsewhere does not necessarily make them fair. > > +++++ The term 'fair' is a somewhat mystical expression to use, all > things are fair if they conform to the laws. Opinion may say some are > not desirable, the laws will make some things illegal, but playing > under known conditions of contest we have no grounds to describe > as unfair things provided for in those conditions to which our > participation indicates consent. ~ Grattan ~ +++++ > An imprecise term, admittedly. However, I think I can accurately describe overall ranking of a straight Mitchell game as unfair, even though it violates no law or regulation. My participation indicates no consent, only a resigned acceptance of a *fait accompli*. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 10:12:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:12:29 +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 KAA06070 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:12:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehue.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.71.206]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA18452 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 20:12:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990602170636.0074ecb0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 17:06:36 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Problem Ruling (LONG) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:37 AM 6/2/99 BST, Tim wrote: >Had I been sitting East I might well have visualised the following layout >of the hands at the critical decision point. > > Qxx > Axx > Axxxx > Qx > AJ9 xx > xx QTxxx > QJTx - > xxxx AKJTxx > KTxxx > KJx > K9xx > x >Here both North and South have been slightly aggressive in the bidding but >that is compatible with their known styles - (on a different day South may >well have opened his actual holding of KQT9xx,xx,KJxx,x). I would >certainly *consider* sitting the double absent UI but I might decide it >was not an LA for me. I'd appeal a ruling of 4S*= but not one of 4S*-2. Of course that is a possible layout, and a fair representative of the class of hands opposite which 5C is the losing action. But consider how much care has to be given to the properties needed to make this so: 1. The hand contains three spades, rather than the (at least) equally likely two, including a favorably placed J9 of trumps. 2. The hand provides two slow but sure diamond winners and 3. No working heart cards. Alter any one of these properties, and let's see what happens. For example, if we turn the QJTx of diamonds into Axxx, we have an apparently stronger hand for defense, but now 5C rates to make. And if we then turn the spade J into the 4 to return to Tim's original 8-count, we have the same good play for 5C, and no realistic hope of beating 4S. Notice that we accomplish all this without even considering the prospect of a top heart honor in partner's hand. Thus while there is certainly a group of hands opposite which 5C loses, it is a fairly narrowly circumscribed population within the entire group of possible hands. It requires us to give full measure to the penalty implications of partner's double, and even then to have fairly specific alignments of side suit honors. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 11:36:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:36:21 +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 LAA06334 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:36:14 +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 10pMQO-000J7S-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:36:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:31:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) References: <017801bead14$292e3d80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <017801bead14$292e3d80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >(2) Regulation 1. should make clear that the TD will not permit >changing or dropping a convention if the reason has anything to do >with some defensive measure a pair is encountering. > >The only justification I can think of is that a pair cannot remember >a convention properly ("convention disruption") and requiring them >to retain it would be detrimental to the game. They can't drop or >revise a convention just because it isn't producing good results. Why ever not? Players develop their systems over time, and for some players, development over playing time is the main time for change. i can think of no reason why this should not be permitted: it is, after all, completely normal for many pairs, and it is difficult to see what is wrong with it. >(3) Regulation 1., "a session of play" should be changed to "an >event." > >It is unfair for a pair to play different systems vs different >opponents in the same event, even if the event spans several >sessions of play. This does not apply to knockout team events, in >which changing system between knockout rounds, or changing system at >a time when team composition can be changed, should be permitted. It >also should be permissible to change a system during a knockout >match with the opponents' permission, not just the TD's. Why is it unfair? Time marches on, and I can think of no reason why this regulation should be in force. -- 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 Jun 3 14:06:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 14:06:47 +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 OAA06803 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 14:06:38 +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 VAA02699 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:06:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02df01bead76$473a45a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <017801bead14$292e3d80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:01:05 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >(2) Regulation 1. should make clear that the TD will not permit > >changing or dropping a convention if the reason has anything to do > >with some defensive measure a pair is encountering. > > > >The only justification I can think of is that a pair cannot remember > >a convention properly ("convention disruption") and requiring them > >to retain it would be detrimental to the game. They can't drop or > >revise a convention just because it isn't producing good results. > > Why ever not? Players develop their systems over time, and for some > players, development over playing time is the main time for change. i > can think of no reason why this should not be permitted: it is, after > all, completely normal for many pairs, and it is difficult to see what > is wrong with it. Let them change between events, that's often enough. The ACBL doesn't want pairs using different systems against different pairs in the same session of play, based on who the pairs are, and a lax policy would permit that. > >(3) Regulation 1., "a session of play" should be changed to "an > >event." > > > >It is unfair for a pair to play different systems vs different > >opponents in the same event, even if the event spans several > >sessions of play. This does not apply to knockout team events, in > >which changing system between knockout rounds, or changing system at > >a time when team composition can be changed, should be permitted. It > >also should be permissible to change a system during a knockout > >match with the opponents' permission, not just the TD's. I am adding that it's okay to change system between qualifying rounds and the finals (or consolation)event in a pair event. > > Why is it unfair? Time marches on, and I can think of no reason why > this regulation should be in force. > So carry a dozen convention cards, and pull out the one that seems appropriate for use against the next pair coming to the table? I don't think so. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 17:44:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:44:41 +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 RAA07317 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:44:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem102.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.102] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10pSAg-0003GR-00; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:44:15 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Marvin L. French" , Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Marketplace Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:35:31 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "How use doth breed a habit in a man" (T.G.of V.) -ooOoo- > From: Marvin L. French > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Marketplace > Date: 03 June 1999 00:12 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Grattan > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 1:57 PM > Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Marketplace > > > > > From: Marvin L. French > > > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > > Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) > > > Date: 02 June 1999 18:17 > > > > > > > > > > : playing > > under known conditions of contest we have no grounds to describe > > as unfair things provided for in those conditions to which our > > participation indicates consent. ~ Grattan ~ > An imprecise term, admittedly. However, I think I can accurately describe > overall ranking of a straight Mitchell game as unfair, even though it > violates no law or regulation. My participation indicates no consent, only > a resigned acceptance of a *fait accompli*. > ++++ 'resigned acceptance' I can accept. I presume that you go on doing it because you enjoy it despite your disaffection at the margins? (And thus consent, in the face of force majeure, to the conditions) + [G] + ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 17:46:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:46:34 +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 RAA07334 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:46:26 +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 HAA22000 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:45:45 GMT Message-ID: <375632B0.14BA9BFE@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 09:45:52 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: establishment Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk i have some problems about exactly when a revoke is established: South (declarer) leads SA, West plays S3, dummy S5, East D2; South plays SK, West is going to follow a card and East says: stop playing, I had a spade and I want to correct the revoke before it's too late. Another situation: same first trick then South plays also SK, East tells the table about his revoke but West, unfortunately, plays to the trick before the revoke is corrected. Reading L62 and L63, I am unclear about what happens between "the revoker becomes aware..." and "revoke is corrected". Thanks for your helpful advices. 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 Jun 3 19:16:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA07444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:16:53 +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 TAA07439 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:16:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-196.uunet.be [194.7.80.196]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04008 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:16:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37555080.90210D12@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 17:40:48 +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: Re: Psyches - fairly long. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard lighton wrote: > > > As I understand it, Grattan's position implies that I should add > > "Approximately once every hundred sessions or so, third seat white > against red, he has done this on a balanced hand with a 3-card suit > and about 10 points." > > I disagree. > Well, I agree with Grattan. I do not advise you to add this to your explanation, as it would indeed be too much. But I would rule misinformation if you don't. That is to say : Misinformation. Most probably : Misinformation, no damage. There might well occur later in the bidding some strange things, which might lead you to divulge to opponent exactly what you wrote above. If that does indeed happen, then Grattan's position (and mine) says that this has to be divulged to opponents. Simple application of L40B and L75C, actually. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 21:01:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:01:44 +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 VAA07575 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:01:34 +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 10pVFQ-000NJE-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:01:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 02:57:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Marketplace References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >+++++ The term 'fair' is a somewhat mystical expression to use, all >things are fair if they conform to the laws. Opinion may say some are >not desirable, the laws will make some things illegal, but playing >under known conditions of contest we have no grounds to describe >as unfair things provided for in those conditions to which our >participation indicates consent. In life we have to accept the rough with the smooth. Some things in Bridge, and in Bridge Laws, appear to me as unfair. The fact that I am willing to play Bridge, and also to apply the laws does not mean in any way that I accept such things as fair. I do not accept for one second that everything that conforms with the Laws is fair. Consider the race in L25B: the WBFLC's opinion over L20F1: and so on. To consent to play under such Laws does not imply that we accept them as fair. -- 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 Jun 3 21:02:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:02:51 +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 VAA07590 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:02:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <3947-1767>; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:01:19 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id MAA13208 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:46:08 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: establishment Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:45:50 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F393@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: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A024468837490350@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >i have some problems about exactly when a revoke is established: > >South (declarer) leads SA, West plays S3, dummy S5, East D2; South plays >SK, West is going to follow a card and East says: stop playing, I had a >spade and I want to correct the revoke before it's too late. Law 63A1 states that a revoke becomes established when the offending side leads or plays to the following trick. That is not the case here; East is just in time, so this revoke can be corrected. >Another situation: same first trick then South plays also SK, East tells >the table about his revoke but West, unfortunately, plays to the trick >before the revoke is corrected. This revoke is not established either in my opinion, since East again drew attention to the revoke before West played. West's card becomes a major penalty card and the revoke is handled according to the Laws. This last case is somewhat similar to the case where declarer leads from the wrong hand: suppose declarer South is on lead, but leads from dummy; West demands that declarer plays from his hand, and East plays anyway. Then East has got himself a major penalty card. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 21:37:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:37:41 +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 VAA07661 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:37:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip88.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.88]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990603113703.IKEG12427.fep1@ip88.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:37:03 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:36:34 GMT Message-ID: <378d68a5.8595730@post.tele.dk> References: <375632B0.14BA9BFE@meteo.fr> In-Reply-To: <375632B0.14BA9BFE@meteo.fr> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thu, 03 Jun 1999 09:45:52 +0200 skrev Jean Pierre Rocafort: >Reading L62 and L63, I am unclear about what happens between "the >revoker becomes aware..." and "revoke is corrected". According to L62A the player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. A player who says "Stop. I've revoked" is aware, and in both cases he speaks before the establishment. Therefore he must correct, and therefore the revoke is not established. In the second case I'd say West plays out of turn, since play must stop while a revoke is being handled. Bertel -- Jeg er på nettet 6. juni, http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 21:50:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:50:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA07699 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:50:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA00529 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:49:53 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Psyches - fairly long. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Grattan wrote: I wrote (snipped stuff of example) > > > As I understand it, Grattan's position implies that I should add > > > > > > "Approximately once every hundred sessions or so, third seat white > > > against red, he has done this on a balanced hand with a 3-card suit > > > and about 10 points." > > > > > > I disagree. > > ++++ I really must learn to speak the language. About every third word > I have contributed on the subject has been 'habit' or 'habitual'. To me such > reference is not to conditions in which the partner will not have any thought > it could be a psychic. Someone has to make the judgement when that line > is crossed; I have said one prior occasion is not enough: I then recognize > that regulating authorities will properly give guidance on the question and > I have avoided committing myself here to an actual evaluation. But I am > convinced the judgement is to do with the point at which the partner of a > psycher becomes conscious the latter has a psyching habit and at which > point, therefore, it is unlawful to conceal his awareness. 'Habit', I think, > intends a partiality for some particular style of psychic, or some particular > situation in the auction liable to trigger his psychics, or again such a > frequency of psyching in general as to create in the partner a pervasive > distrust of the genuineness of the first player's calls. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ > Thank you for the clarification, which is what I had hoped you would say. I'm sorry that I had doubts, quite probably due to my own understanding rather than your language use. It's what comes from about quarter of a century dealing with 'Merican rather than the English of my younger days. For the record, of the 6 psychs of this form I can remember, the first two he had to play very carefully to make the 4S contract I promptly stuck him in (one plus, one break even); one was an unmitigated disaster, two didn't matter, and one was a rousing part score success when I had a hand suitable to raise him on three card support. He got out for some small undoubled loss. Opponents never noticed how many trumps they had. -- 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 Thu Jun 3 21:55:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA07750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:55:54 +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 VAA07745 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 21:55:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp1.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10pW5y-0006OP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 13:55:38 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990603135102.00b0ab10@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 13:51:02 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: establishment In-Reply-To: <375632B0.14BA9BFE@meteo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:45 03-06-99 +0200, you wrote: >i have some problems about exactly when a revoke is established: > >South (declarer) leads SA, West plays S3, dummy S5, East D2; South plays >SK, West is going to follow a card and East says: stop playing, I had a >spade and I want to correct the revoke before it's too late. > If the card of west isnt shown, there is no problem. The revoke has to be corrected. After E tells he revokes, 9B 1 and 2 come into action No player may take action before the TD tells him/her so >Another situation: same first trick then South plays also SK, East tells >the table about his revoke but West, unfortunately, plays to the trick >before the revoke is corrected. this is a breach to 9B2, but i think the revoke still has to be corrected. The card of W is an illegal play, so the TD has to deal with that. regards, anton > >Reading L62 and L63, I am unclear about what happens between "the >revoker becomes aware..." and "revoke is corrected". > >Thanks for your helpful advices. > >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 >___________________________________________________ > > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 22:21:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:21:00 +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 WAA07854 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:20:51 +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 IAA12720 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:33:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990603082102.006f0ac8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:21:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <006601beac6e$7915bb80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:36 PM 6/1/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >This is a tough one. Local expert John Strauch, who with Evan Bailey >plays the very aggressive Bailey Two Bids, something like 8-11 HCP, >weak five-card suit okay, etc., told me that when they are having a >good game he might pass with a hand that contains the requirements >for a two bid, especially when vulnerable, with a weak suit, against >good opponents. That is okay, so long as he has not discussed this >with Evan before a round, and Evan doesn't base his actions on that >knowledge. > >What bothers me is that a regular partnership will be aware of each >other's tendencies in such situations after a while, and will end up >not playing the system that is on their card. Playing a hand, I >might assume one of them does not have a certain high card, or a >certain suit length, because he did not open with a Bailey Two Bid. >At the very least, I think a partnership should comment on sitting >down, "We're having a good game, so don't expect our usual >aggressiveness." Something like that. > >Changing system because of a defense encountered, however, is >illegal, unethical, unfair, and unsportsmanlike. I believe John and >Evan do not modify their weak twos against "optional doubles," and I >commend them for that. > >A while ago I was of the opinion that "system" perhaps did not refer >to strength of calls, only to their meaning. If so, one could change >the strength of a call without having it constitute a change of >system. However, Steve Willner asked me didn't I think that changing >from 16-18 HCP 1NT openings to 9-12 HCP would be a system change? >Sure it would be, so changing strength does change system. One >might say, well not if you change just a bit, but where do you stop? > >If the ACBL regulation bars such explicit statements as "We play >sound overcalls, but not against your penalty doubles," a >conditional initial action, then it becomes illegal to adopt that >policy implicitly by "sensibly" tightening up against penalty >doublers. As a perennial underdog, I discarded negative doubles in >favor of penalty doubles, feeling that such "contrary bidding" could >get me some tops that would not be available to others. Part of that >decision was the prevalence of unsound overcalls these days. If >someone changes system against me, I don't think that is legal, >ethical, fair, or sportsmanlike. Other pairs get the benefits of the >weak overcalls (doubling is still possible, and there is often some >resultant overbidding), and I am deprived of them. > >Perhaps permitting a change in "aggressiveness," which means either >avoiding marginal calls or making marginal calls, while not changing >the HCP that partner will expect, would be acceptable Using suit >quality rather than HCP or suit length as a criterion for such >adjustments should be okay. Against weak players my 8-trick strong >jump overcall hands may be optimistically evaluated, with a suit >like AQ6432 counted as five tricks, and maybe a count of two tricks >for an outside Q10xx. Partner will not allow for this possibility, >however, could not for fear of missing a game, and so will raise to >the four level with two likely tricks. Against strong pairs I would >not take such liberties, but I don't think that constitutes a change >in system. > >I see no way around this conundrum, and conclude that one must play >essentially the same game against all opponents and all defenses, as >the ACBL regulation seems to require. If that's what ACBL regulations require, they are, IMO, illegal. I read L40E as allowing the SO to require one to "employ the same system" against all opponents and all defenses, but "such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment, only method". But I don't believe they require "play[ing] essentially the same... against all opponents". If you prohibit variations based on something, you must be able to define variation, which implies that all agreements must be somehow quantifiable, so that there is something to deviate from. The widely held but rather silly idea that any agreement must be quantifiable is a common source of frustration and confusion: Me: 2H. LHO: Pass. Pard: 2S. M: Alert! RHO: Please explain. M: That's not forcing and not constructive. It says that he thinks 2S is a better contract for our side than 2H. [The second sentence is a verbatim recitation of our explicit agreement.] R: Well, what does he have? M: As I said, any hand with which he thinks 2S is a better contract for our side than 2H. R: How many points does it show? M: It doesn't say anything about points; it says he thinks 2S is a better contract for our side than 2H. R: Director!... He won't tell me what his partner's bid means. The point is, what does it mean to "deviate" from our agreement (other than with a clearly psychic call)? Does it really mean that on this auction we must always make the same call with the same hand, not permitted use our bridge judgment when it tells us that 2S may be better-advised against one pair of opponents, pass against another? Would not such a regulation "restrict... judgment [as opposed to] method"? And would we want such a heavy-handed regulation, even if it were legal? 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 Jun 3 22:39:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:39:29 +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 WAA07924 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:39:22 +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 IAA04210 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990603083939.006fa784@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:39:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Simultaneous Opening Lead out of Turn In-Reply-To: References: <8a92bee9.2481503f@aol.com> <8a92bee9.2481503f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:34 AM 6/2/99 +0100, David wrote: > So, the player leads the spade ace, sees a penalty card of the spade >king, and decides to underlead the spade ace instead of lead it. >Perfectly proper, he has used the information "that offender must play >the card" which is UI. > > Now, suppose he originally was going to make a desperation lead of the >diamond king from Kx against a suit contract. However, now he sees the >spade king as a penalty card, presumably showing the spade queen, and >realises that his original lead is neither necessary nor desirable: if >partner has S KQ the contract is unlikely to make. So now he leads a >passive trump. Is this OK? No, he has used "other information arising >from facing of the penalty card" and that is UI. Can we assume that had the trump lead been made more attractive *solely* by the knowledge that partner held the SK it would have been permissable, i.e. that in David's scenario it is the fact that the lead of the SK "presumably show[s] the SQ" that creates the UI? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 3 22:44:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:44:43 +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 WAA07953 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 22:44:35 +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 10pWr8-0003mQ-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:44:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 01:45:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Vancouver appeal In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>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. > > I think L25A is a good Law. > > Players are getting used to it and often understand it without >problem. > > More than you can say for a lot of other Laws! > I'm TD'ing a regular 7-table Japanese ladies afternoon game. Their Engrish is very poor, and even they have got the hang of "Was it a mistake of the Head or the Fingers?". We ran a 2-minute seminar before the game one week and someone translated my explanations. There was a lot of sage nodding and now when I'm called they say "I meant to bid this" or "I meant to bid something else". I like L25A as applied to bidding boxes. 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 Jun 3 23:19:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:19:03 +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 XAA08032 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:18:56 +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 JAA19559 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990603091903.006f9138@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 09:19:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) In-Reply-To: <017801bead14$292e3d80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:16 AM 6/2/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >(3) Regulation 1., "a session of play" should be changed to "an >event." > >It is unfair for a pair to play different systems vs different >opponents in the same event, even if the event spans several >sessions of play. This does not apply to knockout team events, in >which changing system between knockout rounds, or changing system at >a time when team composition can be changed, should be permitted. It >also should be permissible to change a system during a knockout >match with the opponents' permission, not just the TD's. Why is it unfair? If I play Standard American during the first session of a Swiss team event, and I play Precision with the same partner for the second session, how is this less fair than playing Precision with a different partner for the second session? And if it's fair for me to play Precision with the same partner in the second session of a Swiss team (in which I could have, had I so chosen, played with a different partner), why is it less fair to do so in a matchpoint game? IMO the regulation against changing systems within a session without permission from the TD is designed to prevent partnerships from deciding, for example, to play one system against the seeded pairs and another system against the unseeded pairs. If a pair approaches me after a few rounds and asks permission to play a whole different system, I will routinely grant their request with a proviso that they must stick with the new system for the duration of the session. Going into the last round of a first session I might allow them to change provided they agree to keep the new system through the the second session. Going into the last round of the game, I would not permit them to switch. Am I being unfair to the field? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 00:00:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:00:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA08101 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:00:01 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com (583) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id fLVHa08831; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:53:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:53:37 EDT Subject: Re: Clear enough To: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk, 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 I concur with Grattan that a single occurrence does not create an understanding.. however, a single occurrence brought to a committee (and of course the statements about "first time" may be taken to be self-serving) creates enough stir in my opinion to make partner well aware the next time such a situation arises that his partner might be "doing it again." Hence my comments. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 00:12:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:12:56 +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 AAA09208 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:12:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.gnnettest.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (2963 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:12:01 -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, 3 Jun 1999 10:11:20 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530419CE@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:11:15 -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 ---------- From: Eric Landau [SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 8:21 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) >The point is, what does it mean to "deviate" from our agreement (other than >with a clearly psychic call)? Does it really mean that on this auction we >must always make the same call with the same hand Eric has raised a very tricky point. I firmly believe that players should NOT be required to make the same call with the same hand. Even if we ignore tangential issues such as our subjective belief about the quality of the opponents or the bidding system/style that they chose to employee, I would suggest that it is still desirable to employee so-called mixed strategies and (optimally) randomize between different potential bids. As I mentioned in a previous letter in this thread, opposite partner's disciplined openings bids, I deliberately randomize my response style. However, while I believe that this style of bidding is certainly permissible, I recognize that it makes the legal process much more difficult. As an example, consider the case where my partnership agreement actually consists of a weighted probability density function across pure strategies. First, this type of agreement makes full disclosure of methods much more difficult. (This is not to say that partnerships do not have an obligation to attempt to describe their methods, but its hard enough to accurately communicate this type of thing with partner, let alone an opposing pair.) >not permitted use our >bridge judgment when it tells us that 2S may be better-advised against one >pair of opponents, pass against another? Would not such a regulation >"restrict... judgment [as opposed to] method"? And would we want such a >heavy-handed regulation, even if it were legal? Equally significant, most players will (consciously or unconsciously) subjectively alter the weighting that they assign to different potential responses based on a number of different factors. This type of information is even more difficult to communicate. In addition, I would argue that it is virtually impossible to ascertain whether or not the description of methods that is provided actually corresponds to the system that an individual player is using. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 00:34:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:34:45 +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 AAA10466 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:34:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.gnnettest.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (2056 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:34:31 -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, 3 Jun 1999 10:33:50 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530419D3@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: bridge-laws Subject: RE: Clear enough Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:33:48 -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 ---------- From: Herman De Wael [SMTP:hermandw@village.uunet.be] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 6:33 AM To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Clear enough Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > >That means that even if partner would explain my third hand > >opening as "99.9% certain a five card, in 0.1% of the cases > >0-3 points and less hearts than spades", ... > > Under the Danish systems rules, I would rule it a HUM system because > of its "strong" pass. This is not because I find your system in any > way problematic to defend against, but because the rules regulate > opening passes that show anything other than a strength interval > beginning at 0. Those rules may be unreasonably hard in this case - > but I believe that most HUM regulations are worded more or less like > that. I have seen interesting debates "gaps" in opening preemptive structures. To wit, may players believe that there are sets of hands that are too good to open with a weak 2 Bid, but not strong enough for a disciplined one level opening. For example, consider this hand Qxx Kxxxxx Qxx x I think that many players would pass this hand rather than opening with a weak 2 bid. However, many of them would chose to open xxx Kxxxxx Qxx x If your initial example qualifies as a HUM, then the second one clearly does as well. I don't think its desirable or practical to base the definition of a HUM on whether the set of all hands that will pass is a continuous set. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 00:50:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:50:51 +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 AAA10522 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:50:39 +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 KAA12763 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA12867 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:50:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906031450.KAA12867@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Another situation: same first trick then South plays also SK, East tells > >the table about his revoke but West, unfortunately, plays to the trick > >before the revoke is corrected. > From: Anton Witzen and others likewise > this is a breach to 9B2, but i think the revoke still has to be corrected. > The card of W is an illegal play, so the TD has to deal with that. If you consider West's card a "play," it establishes the revoke per L63A1: "... any such play, legal or illegal..." I am usually the one complaining about unclear rules, but this one seems unambiguous. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 00:59:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA10556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:59:24 +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 AAA10551 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:59:13 +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 KAA13075 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:59:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA12891 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:59:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:59:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906031459.KAA12891@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Problem Ruling (LONG) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Michael S. Dennis" > Of course that is a possible layout, and a fair representative of the class > of hands opposite which 5C is the losing action. > > But consider how much care has to be given to the properties needed to make > this so: I don't think Michael has given full attention to the conditions: partner is clearly the superior player. Players are quite reluctant to pull penalty doubles in these conditions. It seems to me quite possible that partner has only two clubs and was fooling around a bit on the first round. I agree almost entirely with David Stevenson's analysis, but I would vote that pass is a LA under the 30% rule. I think it's quite close, and I could be persuaded to change my mind. One benefit of the North American rule is that pass is clearly a LA; no need for a difficult decision. This is not relevant to the case at hand, but perhaps it's of mild interest. Of course a lot depends on partnership methods, which we haven't been told. If the world class player is Eric Kokish, playing his own preferred methods (double is basically takeout), pass is not a LA even in North America! On the other hand, if these methods were in use, I'd expect the final bid to be 5H, not 5C. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 01:27:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:27:38 +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 BAA10636 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:27:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-144-118.uunet.be [194.7.144.118]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27376 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:27:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37564F72.E6BCF99F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:48:34 +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: establishment References: <375632B0.14BA9BFE@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > i have some problems about exactly when a revoke is established: > > South (declarer) leads SA, West plays S3, dummy S5, East D2; South plays > SK, West is going to follow a card and East says: stop playing, I had a > spade and I want to correct the revoke before it's too late. > easy : West has not played, the revoke is not established. > Another situation: same first trick then South plays also SK, East tells > the table about his revoke but West, unfortunately, plays to the trick > before the revoke is corrected. > East tells the table : irregularity is "called attention to". L9B1a : TD must be called. L9B2 : no payer shall play. By doing so anyway, I think West has now established partner's revoke. Seems clear to me, but indeed the Laws don't say it in so many words. > Reading L62 and L63, I am unclear about what happens between "the > revoker becomes aware..." and "revoke is corrected". > > Thanks for your helpful advices. > > 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 > ___________________________________________________ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 01:27:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:27:49 +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 BAA10648 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:27:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-144-118.uunet.be [194.7.144.118]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27395 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:27:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375650CF.B2EBDE7F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:54:23 +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: <199906021741.DAA04407@octavia.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk jfr@post.pl wrote: > > > Try to play such an event and you see that it is not true. The exception > appears when a team wins very high last matches. But it may happen in Swiss > and in Italian as well. What is Italian ? Just a recap : Swiss = teams never meet twice Danish = teams can meet as many times as they must German (my naming, nothing German about it) = team can meet twice but not more Polish = teams can meet more than once, but not consecutively Italian = ? Any others out there ? > > Jan Romanski -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 01:27:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:27:37 +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 BAA10635 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:27:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-144-118.uunet.be [194.7.144.118]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA27370 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:27:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37564E7B.4AD74E92@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:44:27 +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: Concession after revoke References: <199906022104.QAA22050@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > Grant S [*] wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Why is everyone talking about equity? Equity does not come into it. > > People are trying to find a legal means to give declarer more than > one trick. The one that seems obvious to try is L64C, arguing that > declarer has been 'insufficiently compensated for damage caused'. I think > that's what most of us have been abbreviating 'equity'. > David has stated that Equity in this case was 1 trick to Declarer. (meaning that this would be the number of tricks that declarer would get without the revoke) That means that even with the two-trick penalty, declarer only gains one. With a one-trick penalty declarer has gained nothing. That would make you see that it is not so bad to give two tricks. However, even if equity is only 0 tricks to declarer, and the one-trick penalty is already a bonus, this is then one of those rare cases where the revoke actually costs two tricks. Not so bad either IMO. > > The line stated in effect gave declarer either one or two bonus > > tricks, and most people are happy to give revoker the benefit of the > > doubt. It feels unfair to me to give the benefit of any doubt to the > > offenders: that's all that I object to. > > a) But in this case the 'non-offenders' are also the side that has > made the concession[/claim]. We are not giving the offenders the benefit > of the doubt _qua offenders_, we are giving them the benefit of the doubt > _qua_ acquiescing side. Why is everyone so concerned about the claim. The claim is simple. Declarer cannot win any trick with the remaining cards. Clear - no problem. The real problem is with the revoke. Is this a two penalty revoke or a one penalty. To know this, we need to examine further play. But further play is curtailed through the claim. I have stated that it is clear that the revoke penalty should not only deal with actual tricks, but also with fictitious tricks, that are "played" after a claim. What is the problem of then taking the worst case to offenders (= revokers) when there are several possible lines after the claim ? > b) I don't feel sorry for the declarer just because he didn't get > a 'bonus trick'. Again, the laws are not primarily designed to punish > offenders, but to restore equity. Equity has been restored. Why strain > to look for a law that will allow us to punish the revoke for an extra > trick beyond any damage that was done? > I, personally, don't _like_ the two-trick penalty for cases where > it is obvious that the revoke cannot have cost two tricks. I recognize > that it is law, though, and apply it as necessary. But I do not strain to > apply it, and I certainly don't see that we should re-write claim law just > so as to be able to apply the two-trick penalty more often! > As I said, in this case the two-trick penalty only gains one trick. I agree that it is not good to give two-trick penalties where no one trick has been gained by offenders; but sometimes it is a consequence of the Laws, and we must offer this minor problem to the altar of "easy directing" (ahem). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 03:00:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 03:00:58 +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 DAA11007 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 03:00:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA13201 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:00:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-07.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.39) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma012960; Thu Jun 3 11:59:32 1999 Received: by har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEADC0.A4B676A0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com>; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:57:32 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEADC0.A4B676A0@har-pa1-07.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:30:32 -0400 Encoding: 24 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why not? This regulation has always puzzled me as there seems to be no violation of full disclosure. It is much the same as having a right handed pitcher come in from the bullpen to face a left handed batter, or sending in a hands team for a key inbounds...seems to be a valid and viable strategic device. On the other hand if the pair using such frequent changes bollix them up to their benefit they should expect little sympathy and may find those good scores rolled back. Much more likely is a "no damage becuase the oppos got a top" situation of course. Why do we have to keep regulating all the fun out of the game when the opponents are protected and the pair using the device bears all the risk of misuse? --- Craig Senior (MF)So carry a dozen convention cards, and pull out the one that seems appropriate for use against the next pair coming to the table? I don't think so. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 03:51:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 03:51:29 +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 DAA11104 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 03:51:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from p10s09a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.137.17] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10pbe3-0006ye-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:51:11 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:55:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01beadea$53678bc0$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: Jean Pierre Rocafort To: Bridge Laws (E-mail) Date: Thursday, June 03, 1999 9:11 AM Subject: establishment >i have some problems about exactly when a revoke is established: >South (declarer) leads SA, West plays S3, dummy S5, East D2; South plays >SK, West is going to follow a card and East says: stop playing, I had a >spade and I want to correct the revoke before it's too late. So the revoke gets corrected, L62A and revoker has a penalty card. L62B There is no other penalty for the revoke. >Another situation: same first trick then South plays also SK, East tells >the table about his revoke but West, unfortunately, plays to the trick >before the revoke is corrected. The revoke gets corrected L62A.Revoker has a penalty card.L62B Declarer gets to change his play to the following trick if he wants to (He may not now have won the trick or his line of play may change) L62C1 and revokers partner also may withdraw his card which becomes a penalty card L62C2.There is no other penalty for the revoke. Information from withdrawn actions is UI to offending side L16C2 but authorised to non offenders L16C1 >Reading L62 and L63, I am unclear about what happens between "the >revoker becomes aware..." and "revoke is corrected". IMO L63 applies to the situation where offender is unaware of the revoke until after his partner has played to the next trick.L63 revoke penalties apply to this situation. Anne >i have some problems about exactly when a revoke is established: > >South (declarer) leads SA, West plays S3, dummy S5, East D2; South plays >SK, West is going to follow a card and East says: stop playing, I had a >spade and I want to correct the revoke before it's too late. > >Another situation: same first trick then South plays also SK, East tells >the table about his revoke but West, unfortunately, plays to the trick >before the revoke is corrected. > >Reading L62 and L63, I am unclear about what happens between "the >revoker becomes aware..." and "revoke is corrected". > >Thanks for your helpful advices. > >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 Jun 4 04:12:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:12:35 +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 EAA11144 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:12:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from JESPER ([194.192.112.98]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990603181215.KUHB12427.fep1@JESPER> for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:12:15 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:12:14 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3756b3df.1270236@post12.tele.dk> References: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530419D3@MAIL> In-Reply-To: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D0085530419D3@MAIL> 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 EAA11146 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:33:48 -0400 , Richard Willey wrote: >I don't think its desirable or practical to base the definition of a HUM >on whether the set of all hands that will pass is a continuous set. I agree. I've just checked the WBF systems policy, and its requirements of an initial pass in a non-HUM system is only that it must not show opening values and that it must not be stronger than any bid _at the one level_. That seems better. I wonder how we got our HUM rules - as I remember, they were basically translated from the WBF ones, so either I remember wrong or the WBF has improved its rules. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 04:15:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:15:07 +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 EAA11162 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:14:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from p37s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.56] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10pc0h-0006rx-00; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:14:35 +0100 Message-ID: <006601beadec$91b38120$38a493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Willey" , "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:08:10 +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 Date: 03 June 1999 15:49 Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) > > >---------- >From: Eric Landau [SMTP:elandau@cais.com] >Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 8:21 AM >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) > --------------\x/----------------- >Eric has raised a very tricky point. >I firmly believe that players should NOT be required to make the same >call with the same hand. Even if we ignore tangential issues such as >our subjective belief about the quality of the opponents or the bidding >system/style that they chose to employee, I would suggest that it is >still desirable to employee so-called mixed strategies and (optimally) >randomize between different potential bids. >As I mentioned in a previous letter in this thread, opposite partner's >disciplined openings bids, I deliberately randomize my response style. --------------------- \x/ --------------- ++++ I do not know how I chanced on these words and I think I must have missed the previous cloud. But for what it is worth I am not clear where the discussion is going. What must be disclosed is the meaning of the call you make (and, if asked, what would be the meanings of possible alternative calls). There is freedom of choice in what you choose to tell partner, so long as there are no concealed understandings. Some, mainly artificial, systems are rigid in what you are able to bid because the whole system goes out of joint if you select your call inappropriately; but freewheeling systems give you scope to fly whatever cloud you choose so long as your explanations to opponents truly reflect the bidding conversation between you and your partner and, if they are misleading or grossly distort your holding, do not recline on a bed of concealed partnership understanding because you fail to disclose some significant and frequent feature. Opponents are entitled to know as much as your partner knows about your actions. So what am I missing? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 04:16:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:16:15 +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 EAA11214 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 04:16:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from p37s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.56] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10pc0i-0006rx-00; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:14:37 +0100 Message-ID: <006701beadec$92adbfa0$38a493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Karen R Allison" , "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:11:12 +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: hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk ; bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk ; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: 03 June 1999 15:37 Subject: Re: Clear enough >I concur with Grattan that a single occurrence does not create an >understanding.. however, a single occurrence brought to a committee (and of >course the statements about "first time" may be taken to be self-serving) >creates enough stir in my opinion to make partner well aware the next time >such a situation arises that his partner might be "doing it again." Hence my >comments. > >Karen > +++ Hi Karen (and eavesdroppers), Now we are close to an end! I, for my part agree with what you say about the single occurrence that causes a stir - but not on an open-ended basis. If the psycher fails to repeat the manoeuvre for some time it will fade from the memory and from the daily consciousness of his partner and, given such a lapse of time, it would be wrong to allege a continuing understanding merely because once upon a time it happened. Directors and appeal committees must use commonsense judgement in assessing whether the memory is still too much with the partner. And regulating authorities should take a moderated view avoiding phobias. The position of Authority should surely be at the fulcrum between repression and licence. As for 'first time' the maintenance of records is helpful if doubts arise as to the veracity of statements made to the Director/AC. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 05:09:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 05:09:43 +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 FAA11376 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 05:09:32 +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 MAA11850 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000901beadf4$52679c60$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990603082102.006f0ac8@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:07:23 -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: Marvin L. French wrote: >> I see no way around this conundrum, and conclude that one must play >> essentially the same game against all opponents and all defenses, as >> the ACBL regulation seems to require. > If that's what ACBL regulations require, they are, IMO, illegal. I read > L40E as allowing the SO to require one to "employ the same system" against > all opponents and all defenses, but "such a regulation must not restrict > style and judgment, only method". That is what I meant by "essentially the same system." To me "style and judgment" mean degrees of aggressiveness or conservatism when bidding according to system. It's even okay to violate system, if it's done in accordance with L40A. My current Chicken and Egg proposals contain the following statements: ######### 5) A pair must bid and play according to their system, except for changes permitted by Regulations 1. and 5. and deviations permitted by L40A. 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. Modifying the degree of aggressiveness or conservatism connected with making any call is appropriate for reasons of opponents' skill levels, state of score, "table feel," etc., but not for reasons connected with the defensive measures being used vs the call. It is permissible to make a call that violates system, however, if it is not based on a partnership understanding (L40A). ######## I don't see where this violates L40E. To me, changing the meaning of calls when encountering different defenses is changing method, not exercising "style and judgment." > > But I don't believe they require "play[ing] essentially the same... against > all opponents". If you prohibit variations based on something, you must be > able to define variation, which implies that all agreements must be somehow > quantifiable, so that there is something to deviate from. The widely held > but rather silly idea that any agreement must be quantifiable is a common > source of frustration and confusion: But many are required to be quantified on the cc: Notrump ranges, overcall ranges, soundness of preempts, etc. As I said above, a great degree of variation is permitted if it does not represent a change in method. > > Me: 2H. > LHO: Pass. > Pard: 2S. > M: Alert! > RHO: Please explain. > M: That's not forcing and not constructive. It says that he thinks 2S is a > better contract for our side than 2H. [The second sentence is a verbatim > recitation of our explicit agreement.] > R: Well, what does he have? > M: As I said, any hand with which he thinks 2S is a better contract for our > side than 2H. > R: How many points does it show? > M: It doesn't say anything about points; it says he thinks 2S is a better > contract for our side than 2H. > R: Director!... He won't tell me what his partner's bid means. > > The point is, what does it mean to "deviate" from our agreement (other than > with a clearly psychic call)? Does it really mean that on this auction we > must always make the same call with the same hand, not permitted use our > bridge judgment when it tells us that 2S may be better-advised against one > pair of opponents, pass against another? Would not such a regulation > "restrict... judgment [as opposed to] method"? And would we want such a > heavy-handed regulation, even if it were legal? Agreed, completely. Just so you don't change *method* because of a defensive measure encountered, which leads to the Chicken and Egg Problem if permitted. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 05:39:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 05:39:36 +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 FAA11460 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 05:39:26 +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 PAA05703 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990603153708.00865de0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 15:37:08 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Clear enough In-Reply-To: <006701beadec$92adbfa0$38a493c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: KRAllison@aol.com >>I concur with Grattan that a single occurrence does not create an >>understanding.. however, a single occurrence brought to a committee (and of >>course the statements about "first time" may be taken to be self-serving) >>creates enough stir in my opinion to make partner well aware the next time >>such a situation arises that his partner might be "doing it again." Hence my >>comments. So, if I don't like psyches, all I have to do it make a stink when my opponents psyche. That will keep it fresh in memory and preclude them from doing it again, especially when they next come to my table. One of my most memorable psyches came about 8 years ago. It is particularly memorable because the opponents called the director and told him I was cheating. I'm sure my partner has not forgotten about the incident despite the 8 years in between. Am I prohibited from repeating that psyche with that partner? Tim From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 05:49:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 05:49:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11497 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 05:49:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15254 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002801beadf9$eee37aa0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990603091903.006f9138@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 12:44:42 -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 Eric Landau wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > > >(3) Regulation 1., "a session of play" should be changed to "an > >event." > > > >It is unfair for a pair to play different systems vs different > >opponents in the same event, even if the event spans several > >sessions of play. This does not apply to knockout team events, in > >which changing system between knockout rounds, or changing system at > >a time when team composition can be changed, should be permitted. It > >also should be permissible to change a system during a knockout > >match with the opponents' permission, not just the TD's. I have added to this that it's okay to change system between the qualifying and final rounds (or consolation event) of a pair game. > > Why is it unfair? If I play Standard American during the first session > of a Swiss team event, and I play Precision with the same partner for the > second session, how is this less fair than playing Precision with a > different partner for the second session? Right. I will add that it's okay to change system whenever contestant (to include individual events) compositions may be changed, whether or not it is done. It is probably unethical to change system in order to take advantage of an opposing team's perceived weakness, but that's up to the players' consciences. > And if it's fair for me to play > Precision with the same partner in the second session of a Swiss team > (in which I could have, had I so chosen, played with a different > partner), why is it less fair to do so in a matchpoint game? In a matchpoint pair game, partnerships cannot change. The ACBL doesn't want pairs changing system according to opponents being met, hence the regulation. That's one reason. The other is that all opposing pairs in the same event should get a whack at whatever inferior method you decide to drop, and should be exposed to whatever superior method you decide to adopt. The playing field must be level. To mix metaphors, that is why you should not change horses in the middle of the stream. > > IMO the regulation against changing systems within a session without > permission from the TD is designed to prevent partnerships from > deciding, for example, to play one system against the seeded pairs and > another system against the unseeded pairs. If a pair approaches me after a few > rounds and asks permission to play a whole different system, I will routinely > grant their request with a proviso that they must stick with the new system > for the duration of the session. Going into the last round of a first > session I might allow them to change provided they agree to keep the new > system through the the second session. Going into the last round of the game, > I would not permit them to switch. Am I being unfair to the field? > Yes. A little. I think the change should be granted only if the system is leading to CD ("convention disruption") that is detrimental to the game. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 07:09:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:09:45 +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 HAA11750 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:09:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip60.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.60]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990603210928.NAAS23271.fep4@ip60.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:09:28 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 21:09:33 GMT Message-ID: <3775eed0.5682691@post.tele.dk> References: <199906031450.KAA12867@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906031450.KAA12867@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:50:39 -0400 (EDT) skrev Steve Willner: >If you consider West's card a "play," it establishes the revoke You're right. But if we do, we have contradictory laws: L62A A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. This clearly applies. E *must* correct his revoke. >L63A1: "... any such play, legal or illegal..." This then also applies. The revoke is established. L63C: Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected ... What now? Therefore I conclude that W's action is not a play. Play has ceased until TD allows it to continue. W's action is then merely a displayed card. However, L9.2 says: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty. It seems that the players *can* play, since law 9 says they mustn't. Help! (My feeling still says that the revoke is not established and that W's action is not a play) Bertel -- Jeg er på nettet 6. juni, http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 07:50:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA11924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:50:27 +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 HAA11919 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:50:17 +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 RAA25728 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA21262 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:50:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906032150.RAA21262@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: richard lighton > 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; . . ." > And what is the prescribed penalty? Failing to prescribe a penalty is not at all the same thing as saying that there is no penalty. If no penalty is prescribed, damage (if any) is redressed under L12A1, and a L90 PP may be given. A good example is L41C, which we discussed not so long ago. If dummy hides a card, it is unlikely to damage the defenders, but if it does, they get redress. Because of the wording, no PP would be in order except perhaps for a repeated offense. L7B1 is worded "shall," so a PP is likely on the first offense and should be automatic for a repeated offense. Again damage is unlikely, but it is redressed if it occurs. If the laws say there is no penalty (e.g. L57C), then there is no penalty under L90 or otherwise. I am afraid I find the subtle distinction between "no penalty" and "legal" very hard to comprehend. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 08:00:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA11966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:00:36 +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 IAA11961 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:00:26 +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 SAA25944 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:00:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21280 for Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:00:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906032200.SAA21280@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Advice from on high. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan" > 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 ~ ++++ Does anyone besides me find this remarkable, coming from the source it does? Would people say the same about the auction? ("No law requires every call to carry a message?") How about when partner is barred? Or when partner has limited his hand and will not be participating in the rest of the auction? Are the rules for disclosure of partnership agreements different for calls and plays? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 08:08:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:08:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from sp2n17.missouri.edu (sp2n17-t.missouri.edu [128.206.2.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11999 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:08:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.29.140] ([128.206.29.140]) by sp2n17.missouri.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id RAA69720 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:08:12 -0500 X-Sender: chemrh@pop.missouri.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:08:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Dead cat Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Our cat, Bobbsie, died on Sunday. She was nearly 19 years old. Now nobody tells us to get up in the morning. Our grandcat, Caruso, still lives with our daughter in Albuquerque, so we are still slightly catted. Robert E. Harris Columbia, Missouri, USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 08:27:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:27:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oznet15.ozemail.com.au (oznet15.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.116]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12092 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:27:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([210.84.13.81]) by oznet15.ozemail.com.au (8.9.0/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA20189 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:27:20 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:27:20 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199906032227.IAA20189@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:30 PM 3/06/99 -0400, you wrote: >(MF)So carry a dozen convention cards, and pull out the one that seems >appropriate for use against the next pair coming to the table? I don't >think so. > I have heard of pairs playing for fun who decide to play opponent's system at each table. What happens if two such pairs meet? Cheers, Tony > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 08:30:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:30:20 +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 IAA12113 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:30:13 +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 PAA16547; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:29:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199906032229.PAA16547@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Jun 1999 18:00:30 PDT." <199906032200.SAA21280@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 15:29:31 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Grattan" > > 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 ~ ++++ > > Does anyone besides me find this remarkable, coming from the source it > does? I don't. > Would people say the same about the auction? ("No law requires every > call to carry a message?") How about when partner is barred? Or when > partner has limited his hand and will not be participating in the rest > of the auction? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Suppose we have this auction: North East South West 1S pass 2C(1) pass (1) natural, game force 2D pass 2S pass 3C pass 3H pass 3S pass 4S all pass and, at some point, North asks West, "What did East's fourth pass mean?" Well, what should it mean? East and West have already announced several times that they have nothing to say, so what the heck could East's fourth pass mean? It doesn't mean anything. Well, it does carry the meaning that East isn't in the mood to do something completely moronic, but other than that, the pass carries no meaning. So it's perfectly sensible to say that some calls do not carry any message. And the same goes for defending. Sometimes, you want to send a message to partner. Other times, the only reason you're playing a card is because the Laws say you have to play something (following suit if possible), and you don't have anything to say to partner, and partner should have the whole hand worked out by now anyway, so when you play a card in that position, it doesn't carry any meaning. This seems obvious to me, but maybe I've missed the point of what people are trying to say. One observation that might be on-topic: Law 75B deals with violating partnership agreements. During the auction, I think it's the case that violations (other than minor "stretches" by 1 HCP or so) are relatively uncommon. However, during the play, violations (i.e. falsecarding) are extremely common, and are an important part of the game. Since falsecarding is such an important part of Bridge, and everybody knows this (or should), I doubt that the authors of L75B intended it to apply to falsecarding the way it does to auctions. To apply it the same way would be detrimental to the game. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 08:33:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:33:57 +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 IAA12145 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:33:47 +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 SAA26514 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:33:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21325 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:33:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:33:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906032233.SAA21325@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Inadvertancy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Th big question, in my opinion,is: do want want to allow players to change a > legal call or play under certain circumstances. The present answer on that > question is: yes. I personally am in favour of upholding that approach. Me too. I agree that it's the right question, and I agree with your answer. We may or may not agree on the "certain circumstances." > If we do we have to live with the problems arising from it. Well, we have to live with whatever problems we cannot eliminate by rewriting the rules (both laws and regulations). > There is another less principle approach: since it appears to be impossible > to apply laws when making the choice to allow these changes,even under well > described circumstances, we better don't allow it (I didn't come to that > conclusion yet). I don't know why you call this "less principled." It is different. What would we like to accomplish? It seems to me the goals are: 1) Establish an _unambiguous_ moment after which an action cannot be changed. 2) Forbid changes that give partner information. 3) Forbid changes that are based on information discovered subsequent to the original action. Information can come from an opponent's (or partner's!) reaction as well as a subsequent call or play. 4) Allow changes as late as possible consistent with 1 to 3. Notice I've said nothing about changes of mind versus mechanical errors. I would be happy to allow changes of mind as long as they conform to the other three principles. Some of what we wish for can be accomplished by defining the moment at which an action is "made" to be as late as possible. For example, for bid boxes, I'd rather see "made" be when the bid card is put on the table rather than when it is removed from the box. But no doubt some of what we all want will have to come from laws that allow changes after an action is "made": L25A and L45C. David S. and others say there is no problem applying L25A and 45C. Perhaps they mean they can always give a ruling, but it's not so clear to me that it will be a ruling in accord with the principles I'd like to see applied. Also, as a player, I'm not always clear myself on just when I can change something. Perhaps it's just me, but Vancouver Case 5 suggests that at least a few others in the ACBL are confused too. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 08:53:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:53:23 +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 IAA12195 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:53:09 +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 SAA26717 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21338 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:53:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:53:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906032253.SAA21338@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) > L62A > A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established. > > This clearly applies. E *must* correct his revoke. > > >L63A1: "... any such play, legal or illegal..." > > This then also applies. The revoke is established. > > L63C: > Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected ... > > What now? Yes, this is a paradox, all right! Very good. My own tendency would be to read L62A as "A player must _try to_ correct his revoke...." This time partner's premature action has prevented the correction. I read it this way because L62A is directed to the revoking player, not worded with the same generality as L63A1 and L63C (e.g. not "A revoke must be corrected....") What I'd really like to do is rule along the lines of L63B: the revoke is corrected, but the penalty provisions still apply. This strikes me as fairest, punishing the offenders for both offenses. Unfortunately, L63B is specific about when it applies, and it doesn't apply here. Bertel's (and others') ruling is possible, I suppose. Is there any official interpretation or guidance? One more for Grattan's notebook, I'm afraid. Should we all chip in to buy him some more pages? Or maybe some funds for his overweight luggage to the next WBFLC meeting. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 08:58:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:58:06 +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 IAA12228 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:57:55 +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 SAA26751; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21350; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:57:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Cc: adam@irvine.com X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > Since falsecarding is such an important part of Bridge, and > everybody knows this (or should), I doubt that the authors of L75B > intended it to apply to falsecarding the way it does to auctions. To > apply it the same way would be detrimental to the game. I just don't understand why falsecarding is different from psyching in the auction. Sure, in practice the frequency is different, but why does that mean the rules should be different? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 09:17:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:17:00 +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 JAA00197 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:16:23 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (4241) by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vBGNa02743; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:09:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5f3b39da.24886511@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:09:05 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. 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 6/3/99 6:02:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > every card in defence to carry a message My English is at least as good as yours. Do you know the meaning of "every? If so, what is your question? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 09:16:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:16:59 +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 JAA00196 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:16:23 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (4241) by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vDAOa02743; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:12:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2304ef2a.248865e0@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:12:32 EDT Subject: Re: Inadvertancy 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 6/3/99 6:35:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > Notice I've said nothing about changes of mind versus mechanical > errors. I would be happy to allow changes of mind as long as they > conform to the other three principles. > I'd like to see you give me an example where these would be so pristine clear. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 09:19:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:19:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00221 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:19:30 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (4241) by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vUNPa03188; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <646a2378.2488671e@aol.com> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:17:50 EDT Subject: Re: establishment 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 wWhen the revoker says "please stop, I have revoked, and I want to corrredt it now" is there anyone in this game who thinks that the next hand has the right to play an illegal play, thereby establishing the revoke? Am I drinking too much, or not enough?(or the wrong stuff?) Does nayone really think that when the revoker says, "Hey waat a minute, I've done something wrong, thqt they can now exercise some sort of option of establishing the revoke? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 09:20:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA00258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA00251 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:20:38 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (4241) by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vOLQa02588; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:19:07 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com 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 6/3/99 6:59:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > Sure, in practice the frequency is different, but why > does that mean the rules should be different? Who says they should be different? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 10:28:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:28:38 +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 KAA00406 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:28:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveird.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.75.109]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA22798 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:28:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990603202621.00754c64@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:26:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Problem Ruling (LONG) In-Reply-To: <199906031459.KAA12891@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:59 AM 6/3/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >One benefit of the North American rule is that pass is clearly a LA; no >need for a difficult decision. This is not relevant to the case at >hand, but perhaps it's of mild interest. > But why should we see that as a benefit, over all? On this hand, the ACBL standard helps us avoid making a decision that is obviously closer than I had at first considered, but the opposite effect occurs on those hands which are close under the ACBL rule and (perforce) obvious by the narrower definition of LA in force elsewhere. It is not obvious that one category of problems arises more frequently than the other. Nor is it obvious that avoiding such decisions is a particularly worthy objective. If it were apparent that the ACBL standard at least yields more consistent decisions, that would be a point in its favor, even if those decisions seemed to go against a deeper sense of bridge justice. But I have seen no evidence that our present standard yields either clearer, simpler, or more broadly accepted decisions, and plenty of evidence that the "anybody might seriously consider" standard leads to definitions of LA's which are downright silly. (Not that I am reading your remarks as an unqualified endorsement of the ACBL position, mind you.) Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 11:43:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:43:02 +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 LAA00631 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:42:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from p4fs03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.80] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10pj0N-0002q7-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 02:42:44 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 02:47:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01beae2c$362a79e0$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: Friday, June 04, 1999 1:23 AM Subject: Re: establishment >> From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) >> L62A >> A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the >> irregularity before it becomes established. >> >> This clearly applies. E *must* correct his revoke. >> >> >L63A1: "... any such play, legal or illegal..." >> >> This then also applies. The revoke is established. >> >> L63C: >> Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected ... >> >> What now? > >Yes, this is a paradox, all right! Very good. > >My own tendency would be to read L62A as "A player must _try to_ >correct his revoke...." This time partner's premature action has >prevented the correction. I read it this way because L62A is directed >to the revoking player, not worded with the same generality as L63A1 >and L63C (e.g. not "A revoke must be corrected....") > >What I'd really like to do is rule along the lines of L63B: the revoke >is corrected, but the penalty provisions still apply. This strikes me >as fairest, punishing the offenders for both offenses. Unfortunately, >L63B is specific about when it applies, and it doesn't apply here. > >Bertel's (and others') ruling is possible, I suppose. > >Is there any official interpretation or guidance? One more for >Grattan's notebook, I'm afraid. Should we all chip in to buy him some >more pages? Or maybe some funds for his overweight luggage to the next >WBFLC meeting. No No No. Read Law 62 thorough. It allows for this situation. When cards have been played, they may be withdrawn. It is anticipated that this may happen. Grattan's notebook is full enough without this. Anne > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 11:58:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:58:50 +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 LAA00674 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:58:43 +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 10pjFc-000KXa-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 01:58:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 02:57:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) In-Reply-To: <199906032227.IAA20189@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906032227.IAA20189@oznet15.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >At 12:30 PM 3/06/99 -0400, you wrote: > >>(MF)So carry a dozen convention cards, and pull out the one that seems >>appropriate for use against the next pair coming to the table? I don't >>think so. >> >I have heard of pairs playing for fun who decide to play opponent's system >at each table. What happens if two such pairs meet? > >Cheers, > >Tony >> > In that case their bidding system is "No agreement" 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 Jun 4 12:45:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA00794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:45:52 +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 MAA00789 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:45:46 +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 TAA28627 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:45:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009901beae34$01a3d880$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906032227.IAA20189@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:35:18 -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 From: Tony Musgrove > > >(MF)So carry a dozen convention cards, and pull out the one that seems > >appropriate for use against the next pair coming to the table? I don't > >think so. > > > I have heard of pairs playing for fun who decide to play opponent's system > at each table. What happens if two such pairs meet? > They play without a system, as was the subject of a BLML thread a while back. Of course it can't happen in ACBL-land: "Partnerships are required to have two convention cards identically and legibly filled out." I take it that "filled out" means that all the information is entered, not left blank :)) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 14:28:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:28:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-24.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-24.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA00972 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:28:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-24.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA01102 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:28:25 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: slot0-24.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net: moorebj owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:28:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Appeal from Moscow Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings, My first impression is that the double of 2C is almost insane. Even given the fact that partner has 3 pieces to the king and a smattering of points, EW are cold for 8 tricks at 2CXX. I make that to be -760. Or give West king fourth in clubs and partner 6 hearts to the queen. If partner runs to hearts, he'll be chewed up. It's certainly much easier to say that one would have doubled 2C after the fact. Given the risk of -760 (or worse) and the fact that partner will lead clubs when it's wrong, I would never find a double with this hand. I'd view any such claim with more than a little suspicion. Bruce In article DWS 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 : 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 Fri Jun 4 14:51:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA01010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:51:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-48.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot0-48.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01005 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:51:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot0-48.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA01261 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:51:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:51:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Cue Bids Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Perhaps I learned a different definition of "cuebid". I learned that it was simply the suit bid by an opponent (either naturally or not). This agrees with the online bridge glossary at the Bridge World. It is sometimes helpful for a cuebid to be natural; for example, one may play against a canape' system such as Standard American ;-). > > > > 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? The idea is that many newer players have no agreements here; they have no notion of any kind of "invisible" cue bid. I believe this regulation is designed to protect them. > 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. I have no idea what some unknown opponent may expect. Perhaps he's just arrived from Italy and expects everyone to be playing Roman or Neapolitan Club. > > 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 ~ > > Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 16:53:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA01306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:53:43 +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 QAA01301 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:53:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip75.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.75]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990604065321.OAPF12427.fep1@ip75.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:53:21 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 06:53:27 GMT Message-ID: <37587513.1644604@post.tele.dk> References: <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 Fri, 4 Jun 1999 02:47:32 +0100 skrev Anne Jones: >No No No. Read Law 62 thorough. It allows for this situation. No. The right to redraw a played card depends on what the opponent does. If he plays the same card, you can redraw nothing. Besides a redraw does not make an established revoke unestablished. If W's card is played, then L62 and L63 conflict. (Therefore it is not played) Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 17:09:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:09:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.pl (home.pl [195.205.230.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01334 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:09:45 +1000 (EST) From: jfr@post.pl Message-Id: <199906040709.RAA01334@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from home.pl (HELO localhost) (195.205.230.32) by home.pl with SMTP; 4 Jun 1999 07:09:46 -0000 Subject: RE: Swiss Teams Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mime-version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:09 +0100 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael: >jfr@post.pl wrote: >> >> >> Try to play such an event and you see that it is not true. The exception >> appears when a team wins very high last matches. But it may happen in Swiss >> and in Italian as well. > >What is Italian ? Sorry, Italian = Danish for me. J.Romanski From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 17:56:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA01403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:56:50 +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 RAA01398 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA28438 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 08:56:02 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 4 Jun 99 08:55 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: Problem Ruling (LONG) 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: <199906031459.KAA12891@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve Willner Wrote: > It seems to me quite possible that partner has only two clubs and was > fooling around a bit on the first round. Now that I hadn't considered at the time (probably because of the, to me, AI) but it is a distinct possibility for the player concerned. Nor had I considered the possibility that NS were overbidding grotesquely and about to be severely punished, although that too was possible given who we were. > One benefit of the North American rule is that pass is clearly a LA; no > need for a difficult decision. This is not relevant to the case at > hand, but perhaps it's of mild interest. Indeed - the ruling would have been simple, uncontentious and never posted to this list. But playing under ACBL definitions try an East hand of say x,Qxxxx,-,AKxxxxx (not a problem under the 30% rule). Moving the "border" changes which rulings are tough but I'm not sure it changes the number of difficult rulings. > Of course a lot depends on partnership methods, which we haven't been > told. If the world class player is Eric Kokish, playing his own > preferred methods (double is basically takeout), pass is not a LA even > in North America! On the other hand, if these methods were in use, > I'd expect the final bid to be 5H, not 5C. For the record I wouldn't go quite as far as "world class" [Getting the fine gradations into describing ability levels consistently continues to present a challenge]. The double is very much penalty oriented by the agreements in force at the time. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 21:52:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:52:56 +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 VAA01696 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:52:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from p82s13a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.141.131] helo=pacific) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10psWb-0001TL-00; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:52:37 +0100 Message-ID: <003401beae80$5ec70220$1d8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: "Adam Beneschan" Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 12:47:28 +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: adam@irvine.com Date: 03 June 1999 23:50 Subject: Re: Advice from on high. > > >Steve Willner wrote: > >> > From: "Grattan" >> > 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 ~ ++++ >> >> Does anyone besides me find this remarkable, coming from the source it >> does? > Adam wrote:- >I don't. > ------------ \x/ ------------ > >So it's perfectly sensible to say that some calls do not carry any >message. And the same goes for defending. Sometimes, you want to >send a message to partner. Other times, the only reason you're >playing a card is because the Laws say you have to play something >(following suit if possible), and you don't have anything to say to >partner, and partner should have the whole hand worked out by now >anyway, so when you play a card in that position, it doesn't carry any >meaning. > ++++ Thank you Adam. There are people who like to play some kind of suit preference discards and I find myself with no option but to 'mean' something or other when I discard. As David can testify I quite often do not know what I want to mean and I prefer partner to work it out for himself. I like to agree that a low card shows interest in the suit but any other card merely says that I judge/misjudge that it is the legal card I can best afford to contribute to the trick (and, partner, infer from that what you will or nothing). ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 21:53:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:53:38 +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 VAA01703 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:53:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-89-5.uunet.be [194.7.89.5]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01131 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:53:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <37579DC0.160C612D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:34:56 +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: Swiss Teams References: <199906040709.RAA01334@octavia.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk jfr@post.pl wrote: > > Herman De Wael: > >jfr@post.pl wrote: > >> > >> > > > >What is Italian ? > > Sorry, Italian = Danish for me. > Do we need to add Italian = Polish Danish to our list ? I don't think so. OK Jan ? Do we need to add Ukrainian ? Or do we understand it when a description says, "Swiss in the first 7 rounds, Polish in the last 3". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 21:55:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:55:27 +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 VAA01724 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:55:19 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (543) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pRVMa02054; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:54:30 EDT Subject: Trip To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: gester@globalnet.co.uk, hermes@dodona.softnet.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 Kojak here. We're off to visit family until the 13th. Long trip throughout the Eastern part of the USA. Good luck to all. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 4 22:51:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 22:51:08 +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 WAA01992 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 22:50:59 +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 JAA10082 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 08:51:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <006601beadec$91b38120$38a493c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:08 PM 6/3/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >++++ I do not know how I chanced on these words and I think >I must have missed the previous cloud. But for what it is worth >I am not clear where the discussion is going. What must be >disclosed is the meaning of the call you make (and, if asked, >what would be the meanings of possible alternative calls). There >is freedom of choice in what you choose to tell partner, so >long as there are no concealed understandings. > Some, mainly artificial, systems are rigid in what you are >able to bid because the whole system goes out of joint if you >select your call inappropriately; but freewheeling systems give >you scope to fly whatever cloud you choose so long as your >explanations to opponents truly reflect the bidding conversation >between you and your partner and, if they are misleading or >grossly distort your holding, do not recline on a bed of concealed >partnership understanding because you fail to disclose some >significant and frequent feature. Opponents are entitled to know >as much as your partner knows about your actions. > So what am I missing? ~ Grattan ~ ++++ The issue being addressed in my earlier post and Richard's response was this: If you play a freewheeling system that gives you the scope for such choices, you will select your calls based on a variety of factors, which may include who your opponents are (e.g. their level of skill, or their methods). Over time, patterns will emerge, which partner will observe, thus creating an implicit agreement (subject to disclosure, as Grattan points out). But when that happens, you are suddenly in violation of the ACBL regulation that prohibits varying your agreements based on the identity of your opponents. This raises two problems: (1) The ACBL regulation obviates the fundamental principle stated by Grattan, "There is freedom of choice in what you choose to tell partner, so long as there are no concealed understandings." As such, it would appear to be illegal by L40E1 ("such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment"). (2) When you play a freewheeling system that lets you choose alternative calls in a given situation, you don't go into a precise and structured intellectual exercise in analysis that gives probabalistic weights to all of the factors involved in your decision to choose your call; rather, you maintain some, perhaps less than fully conscious, awareness of those factors at all times, and when you make a decision you pick the call that "feels right" intuitively at the moment. Who your opponents are is one of those factors, but not even you, much less some regulating authority, can possibly know just how much that, as opposed to all those other things you might have in mind, contributed to your choice of call, or whether it was the particular factor that was determinative in any specific decision. If it comes to adjudication, the adjudicators, in line with the currently dominant view of application of the laws, will (should) find that your decision *might* have been based on your opponents' identity -- "we don't read minds" -- and is thus a violation of the regulation. When you put all these things together, you discover that if you play a freewheeling system you will eventually be in violation perforce. When you "fly whatever cloud you choose", you take on a burden of proof that your choice wasn't effected by the identity of your opponents. The effect of the regulation is thus to make your freewheeling system itself a de facto violation. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 00:32:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:32:28 +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 AAA04440 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:32:19 +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 KAA08708 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA21798 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:32:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906041432.KAA21798@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Inadvertancy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > Notice I've said nothing about changes of mind versus mechanical > > errors. I would be happy to allow changes of mind as long as they > > conform to the other three principles. > > > I'd like to see you give me an example where these would be so pristine clear. My point exactly! Thanks for reinforcing it. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 00:38:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:38:53 +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 AAA04472 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:38:45 +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 KAA24710 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:51:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990604103910.00692574@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:39:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <000901beadf4$52679c60$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990603082102.006f0ac8@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:07 PM 6/3/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >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. > >Modifying the degree of aggressiveness or conservatism connected >with making any call is appropriate for reasons of opponents' skill >levels, state of score, "table feel," etc., but not for reasons >connected with the defensive measures being used vs the call. It is >permissible to make a call that violates system, however, if it is >not based on a partnership understanding (L40A). Your CC says "light overcalls". Nobody vul, 2nd seat, xx/Qxx/xxx/KQxxx, 1S-? You overcall 2C. Two rounds later, same conditions, same hand, same auction. This time you pass. By Marv's reasoning, you have just "switch[ed] to sound overcalls... a change of system", as you have "modif[ied] the degree of agressiveness or conservatism connected with making any call". Thus by ACBL regulation, if you chose to vary your calls for an inappropriate reason ("because an opposing pair is playing penalty doubles"), that is illegal. When you sat down at those two tables, though, you had some idea of the state of the score, you saw who your opponents were and knew, or formed some impression of, their skill levels, and you perused their convention card -- along with a couple of hundred other, mostly subtler, factors that might have effected your subsequent bidding decisions. Then when your RHO opened 1S, your "'table feel'" (aka intuition, or subconscious reasoning) told you either to overcall or to pass. Did it do so based determinatively on the fact that your opponents were playing penalty doubles, as opposed to one or any combination of the hundreds of other factors that might have affected your decision? *You* don't know -- so how can the TD or AC? It might have, of course, and "we don't read minds". So (unless, on this occasion you had the particular good fortune to made your two different calls against two pairs who had identically marked CCs), saying that you may not vary your call based on your opponent's methods (or for any other specific reason) is, for practical purposes, the same as saying that you may not vary your call, period. And that is unacceptable. Marv offers L40A as a way out of this impasse: "It is permissible to make a call that violates system, however, if it is not based on a partnership understanding (L40A)." To show that this doesn't work, let's stipulate that our decision to make different calls *was* based on a partnership understanding... At the second table, where I chose to pass, my opponents were Smith and Jones. The last two times we made light overcalls against them, they doubled us for a number. On the second occasion, as we left the table, pard said, "Those guys are tough; we'd better tighten up our overcalls against them." So I am prepared to admit that I passed against Smith and Jones specifically, where I would most likely have overcalled against some other pair. Why did Smith and Jones get those numbers against us on the two previous occasions? Was it because they're the best players in the club? Was it because they double more agressively than the other pairs? Was it because they have a particular penchant for low-level defense? Was it because they're prejudiced against skinny bald guys with glasses and made a special effort to "get" us? Or was it because their defensive methods were more suited than others' to extracting penalties from light overcalls? Do I know? Do I care? Should I? My answer is no, no and no. Marv's answer is that I had better if I want to play by the rules. Do we really want to treat "Those guys are tough; we'd better tighten up our overcalls against them" as a potentially illegal agreement? 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 Jun 5 00:57:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:57:49 +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 AAA04509 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 00:57:35 +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 RAA13094 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:57:17 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <006001beae9a$105735a0$90047bc3@svk.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Swiss Teams Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:53:49 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >jfr@post.pl wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael: >> >jfr@post.pl wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >What is Italian ? >> >> Sorry, Italian = Danish for me. >> > >Do we need to add > >Italian = Polish Danish > >to our list ? > >I don't think so. >OK Jan ? > >Do we need to add Ukrainian ? >Or do we understand it when a description says, "Swiss in >the first 7 rounds, Polish in the last 3". >-- In Ukraine we understand "Italian" as a system when: at first - there are no limits for meets; at second - a opponent in the n+1 round is defined in the n -1 round. Scheduler for the first 2 round is defined by casting the lot. May be this system is unknown in Itally and it needs to be rename as "Ukrainian"? -:). Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 01:01:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:01:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy.cais.net (stmpy.cais.net [199.0.216.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04542 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:01:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from apl-solutions-1 (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA17441 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:14:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990604110148.00700874@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:01:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) In-Reply-To: <002801beadf9$eee37aa0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990603091903.006f9138@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 6/3/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Right. I will add that it's okay to change system whenever contestant >(to include individual events) compositions may be changed, whether or not >it is done. It is probably unethical to change system in order to take >advantage of an opposing team's perceived weakness, but that's up to the >players' consciences. How can it be unethical to vary our system "to take advantage of an opposing team's perceived weakness" when (as I'm confident we would all agree) it is not unethical to vary our system between open games and Flight A games to take advantage of the opposing teams' perceived weakness? >In a matchpoint pair game, partnerships cannot change. The ACBL doesn't >want pairs changing system according to opponents being met, hence the >regulation. That's one reason. No it's not. We're talking about what's fair. What has that to do with what the ACBL wants? >The other is that all opposing pairs in the >same event should get a whack at whatever inferior method you decide to >drop, and should be exposed to whatever superior method you decide to >adopt. The playing field must be level. To mix metaphors, that is why you >should not change horses in the middle of the stream. As I get older, I find that my concentration lapses and my caliber of play deteriorates as it gets late into the evening. If it is unfair to the evening field to deprive them of the opportunity to "get a whack at [my] inferior method" of the afternoon, is it not equally unfair to deprive the afternoon field of the opportunity to get a whack at may inferior play of the evening? 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 Jun 5 01:14:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:14:12 +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 BAA04600 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:14:03 +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 LAA29789 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990604111427.006f3eb4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 11:14:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) In-Reply-To: <199906032227.IAA20189@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:27 AM 6/4/99 +1000, Tony wrote: >I have heard of pairs playing for fun who decide to play opponent's system >at each table. What happens if two such pairs meet? Way back when (late 60s or early 70s), I did that, and it was lots of fun. One of my regular partners and I used to go to local club games with, in lieu of a convention card, a small laminated card that read "We play your system for your convenience." We never did encounter another pair doing the same thing, however. Regrettably, we were eventually forced to abandon the practice as being illegal under ACBL rules. While I understand the legal rationale for that decision, it seemed silly then, and it seems silly now. 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 Jun 5 01:19:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:19:03 +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 BAA04635 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:18:51 +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 LAA10340 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:18:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA21883 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:18:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 11:18:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906041518.LAA21883@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > No No No. Read Law 62 thorough. It allows for this situation. When cards > have been played, they may be withdrawn. It is anticipated that this may > happen. Sorry, but I don't get it. Most of L62 deals with what happens if a revoke is not established. That's fine, but it doesn't help decide whether the revoke is established or not. Either way, there is a prescribed procedure to follow (L62 or L64). The question is which one to use in the controversial case. > From: Schoderb@aol.com > wWhen the revoker says "please stop, I have revoked, and I want to corrredt > it now" is there anyone in this game who thinks that the next hand has the > right to play an illegal play, thereby establishing the revoke? There's no question that the play is illegal; L9B2 was mentioned at the very beginning of the thread. The question is what to do about it if it happens. Treating the revoke as established is likely (but I guess not guaranteed) to be more severe punishment than letting the revoke be corrected. A PP would most certainly be in order ("shall"). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 01:43:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:43:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA04717 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:43:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.41.200]) by mtiwmhc03.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.06 118-133) with SMTP id <19990604154238.VPTD9754@default> for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:42:38 +0000 Message-ID: <033101beaea0$c06816c0$bd294b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604111427.006f3eb4@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:41:24 -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 RE: Playing the opponents CC Eric Landau wrote - > Way back when (late 60s or early 70s), I did that, and it was lots of fun. > One of my regular partners and I used to go to local club games with, in > lieu of a convention card, a small laminated card that read "We play your > system for your convenience." We never did encounter another pair doing > the same thing, however. > > Regrettably, we were eventually forced to abandon the practice as being > illegal under ACBL rules. While I understand the legal rationale for that > decision, it seemed silly then, and it seems silly now. I, too, have done this and find it lots of fun. IMO your local club director, as an independent business person, could allow you to do this. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 02:02:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 02:02:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from home.pl (home.pl [195.205.230.32]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA04953 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 02:02:17 +1000 (EST) From: jfr@post.pl Message-Id: <199906041602.CAA04953@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from home.pl (HELO localhost) (195.205.230.32) by home.pl with SMTP; 4 Jun 1999 16:02:22 -0000 Subject: Re: Swiss Teams Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mime-version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:02 +0100 X-mailer: Netbula AnyEMail(TM) 1.5 trial Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael - snip > >Italian = Polish Danish > Very good and funny idea. But if you check _very_ old magazines (eg. 30 years), then you can find the word Italian as the name of Danish Teams. In fact Italian is an official term in Poland (and east of Poland) - in regulations, articles and whatsover. I was in a hurry and I've forgot BLML terminology. I think one "sorry" is enough. Jan Romanski From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 03:05:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 03:05:01 +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 DAA05097 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 03:04:54 +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 KAA03656 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01b101beaeab$e82c2380$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604111427.006f3eb4@pop.cais.com> <033101beaea0$c06816c0$bd294b0c@default> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:52:19 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard F. Beye wrote: > RE: Playing the opponents CC > > Eric Landau wrote - > > > Way back when (late 60s or early 70s), I did that, and it was lots of fun. > > One of my regular partners and I used to go to local club games with, in > > lieu of a convention card, a small laminated card that read "We play your > > system for your convenience." We never did encounter another pair doing > > the same thing, however. > > > > Regrettably, we were eventually forced to abandon the practice as being > > illegal under ACBL rules. While I understand the legal rationale for that > > decision, it seemed silly then, and it seems silly now. > > I, too, have done this and find it lots of fun. IMO your local club > director, as an independent business person, could allow you to do this. Provided no masterpoints are awarded. In franchised games the semi-autonomy of private clubs does not give them the right to ignore the Laws (e.g., cannot bar psychs, which many do) or ACBL regulations. The regulation concerning convention cards is included in *Duplicate Decisions*, the ACBL guide to club directors. Clubs do have the right to allow or bar any convention they please, as long as the game is conducted solely at the club. They also have leeway in the enforcement of a few regulations, such as the Alert Procedure, but such leeway must be explicitly granted in the regulation. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 03:35:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 03:35:13 +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 DAA05164 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 03:35:04 +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 KAA06622 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01cb01beaeb0$1de24dc0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 10:23:25 -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 Eric Landau wrote: >If you play a freewheeling system that gives you the scope for such > choices, you will select your calls based on a variety of factors, which > may include who your opponents are (e.g. their level of skill, or their > methods). Over time, patterns will emerge, which partner will observe, > thus creating an implicit agreement (subject to disclosure, as Grattan > points out). But when that happens, you are suddenly in violation of the > ACBL regulation that prohibits varying your agreements based on the > identity of your opponents. You have touched on two subjects here: Level of opponents' skills, and methods used by the opponents. I do not believe the ACBL intends to restrict players' rights to overbid against weak opponents and underbid against strong opponents, even if partner realizes that you are likely to do so. What the ACBL does expect is that you will bid according to the methods you have disclosed, mainly those which appear on the cc. Even deviating from those is okay if doing so is not part of a partnership understanding. The ACBL does permit changes of system related to defenses against methods encountered, but does not permit system changes related to defensive measures encountered. Let me reword that principle: Initial actions cannot be changed because of opposing defenses, but defenses can be changed because of opposing initial actions. This raises two problems: > > (1) The ACBL regulation obviates the fundamental principle stated by > Grattan, "There is freedom of choice in what you choose to tell partner, so > long as there are no concealed understandings." As such, it would appear > to be illegal by L40E1 ("such a regulation must not restrict style and > judgment"). The purpose of this thread was to interpret ACBL regulations, which seem to solve the Chicken and Egg problem, and to suggest modifications that would make them more consistent and understandable. Those who think the regulations are illegal on their face, or are detrimental to the game, should start another thread. I see nothing in the ACBL regulations that would restrict style and judgment, but maybe I interpret those words differently. L40E says an SO "must not restrict style and judgment, only method," and the ACBL regulations say "During a session of play, a system may not be varied," and "Opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defenses." Those are method restrictions, which are permitted by L40E. If it is thought that "style and judgment" extend to changes of system, then L40E is not being read correctly. > > (2) When you play a freewheeling system that lets you choose alternative > calls in a given situation, you don't go into a precise and structured > intellectual exercise in analysis that gives probabalistic weights to all > of the factors involved in your decision to choose your call; rather, you > maintain some, perhaps less than fully conscious, awareness of those > factors at all times, and when you make a decision you pick the call that > "feels right" intuitively at the moment. Who your opponents are is one of > those factors, but not even you, much less some regulating authority, can > possibly know just how much that, as opposed to all those other things you > might have in mind, contributed to your choice of call, or whether it was > the particular factor that was determinative in any specific decision. If > it comes to adjudication, the adjudicators, in line with the currently > dominant view of application of the laws, will (should) find that your > decision *might* have been based on your opponents' identity -- "we don't > read minds" -- and is thus a violation of the regulation. When you put all > these things together, you discover that if you play a freewheeling system > you will eventually be in violation perforce. When you "fly whatever cloud > you choose", you take on a burden of proof that your choice wasn't effected > by the identity of your opponents. The effect of the regulation is thus to > make your freewheeling system itself a de facto violation. > Just play what's on your card and do not change system because of defenses you encounter. Then you can exercise "style and judgment" to your heart's content. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 05:00:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:00:50 +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 FAA05353 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:00:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.gnnettest.com(gnmail[10.2.128.3]) (1727 bytes) by mail.azure-tech.com via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp (sender: ) id for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:00:36 -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, 4 Jun 1999 14:59:54 -0400 Message-ID: <051AEB90DAFCD2118C0F00C00D008553041ACB@MAIL> From: Richard Willey To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:59:44 -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 Marvin made a pair of comments that concern me >I do not believe the ACBL intends to restrict players' rights to overbid >against weak opponents and underbid against strong opponents, even if >partner realizes that you are likely to do so. What the ACBL does expect >is that you will bid according to the methods you have disclosed, MAINLY >THOSE WHICH APPEAR ON THE CONVENTION CARD >Just play what's on your card and do not change system because of defenses >you encounter. Then you can exercise "style and judgment" to your heart's >content. I would respectfully suggest that the convention card design that is used In North American is only intended as a very basic summary of methods. It is impossible to to describe any type of detailed or complex agreements Using this card design. I'd go so far to say that it is extremely difficult To describe a strong or variable club system if you're using the Standard card. I'd be very leery about even inferentially linking allowable methods to those that Can be accurately described on this type of card. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 05:15:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:50 +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 FAA05387 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:33 +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 10pzR3-00092O-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:15:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:27:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) References: <199906032227.IAA20189@oznet15.ozemail.com.au> <009901beae34$01a3d880$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009901beae34$01a3d880$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >From: Tony Musgrove >> >> >(MF)So carry a dozen convention cards, and pull out the one that seems >> >appropriate for use against the next pair coming to the table? I don't >> >think so. >> > >> I have heard of pairs playing for fun who decide to play opponent's >system >> at each table. What happens if two such pairs meet? >> >They play without a system, as was the subject of a BLML thread a while >back. Of course it can't happen in ACBL-land: > >"Partnerships are required to have two convention cards identically and >legibly filled out." Surely, they borrow their oppos' CCs and then gravely hand them back? -- 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 Jun 5 05:15:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:49 +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 FAA05388 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:34 +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 10pzR5-00092N-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:15:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:22:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Clear enough References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen wrote: >I concur with Grattan that a single occurrence does not create an >understanding.. however, a single occurrence brought to a committee (and of >course the statements about "first time" may be taken to be self-serving) >creates enough stir in my opinion to make partner well aware the next time >such a situation arises that his partner might be "doing it again." Hence my >comments. I feel I must re-affirm what I said earlier: I strongly disagree with this. You are saying that one occasion does not constitute an agreement but then you warn a pair they now have an agreement. That is wrong. Please note that a "self-serving" statement is one that is self- serving. The current American bridge usage that self-serving means lying is not acceptable. -- 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 Jun 5 05:15:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:54 +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 FAA05396 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:39 +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 10pzR6-000M5o-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:15:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:42:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment References: <646a2378.2488671e@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <646a2378.2488671e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >wWhen the revoker says "please stop, I have revoked, and I want to corrredt >it now" is there anyone in this game who thinks that the next hand has the >right to play an illegal play, thereby establishing the revoke? Am I >drinking too much, or not enough?(or the wrong stuff?) Does nayone really >think that when the revoker says, "Hey waat a minute, I've done something >wrong, thqt they can now exercise some sort of option of establishing the >revoke? No, he has not got the *right* to play another card [L9B2] - but the question is what happens if he does so anyway. Since it would normally be detrimental to his side if he established the revoke thereby it is difficult to believe he would do so deliberately [and L72B1 would apply if we could actually construct a situation where it was to his benefit]. I think the problem comes where one player is saying "Stop!" just as his partner has taken a card out and plays it through inertia. -------- Anne Jones wrote: >No No No. Read Law 62 thorough. It allows for this situation. When cards >have been played, they may be withdrawn. It is anticipated that this may >happen. L62 refers to cards played after the revoke and before attention is drawn to it, which is not the current situation: it is a card played after attention is drawn that is the problem. -- 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 Jun 5 05:15:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:55 +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 FAA05398 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:41 +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 10pzR8-000M5n-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:15:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:43:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Dead cat References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Robert E. Harris writes >Our cat, Bobbsie, died on Sunday. She was nearly 19 years old. Now nobody >tells us to get up in the morning. >Our grandcat, Caruso, still lives with our daughter in Albuquerque, so we >are still slightly catted. Our sincere commiserations. -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 05:15:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:57 +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 FAA05408 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:15:45 +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 10pzR3-000M5n-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:15:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 19:31:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Advice from on high. References: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Adam Beneschan >> Since falsecarding is such an important part of Bridge, and >> everybody knows this (or should), I doubt that the authors of L75B >> intended it to apply to falsecarding the way it does to auctions. To >> apply it the same way would be detrimental to the game. > >I just don't understand why falsecarding is different from psyching in >the auction. Sure, in practice the frequency is different, but why >does that mean the rules should be different? They aren't: their effect is. Read L40B. If oppos are likely to understand the meaning then it is legal: well, oppos expect and understand false-cards: oppos do not expect psyches, so they are treated differently. -- 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 Jun 5 05:59:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:59:00 +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 FAA05521 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 05:58:48 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com (230) by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qHOLa14678; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:57:41 EDT Subject: Re: Clear enough To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson states: << The current American bridge usage that self-serving means lying is not acceptable. >> I don't think that most of us on the AC in the ACBL believe that "self-serving means lying." That is a harsh judgment of us, David. We do not accept statements that cannot be verified in committee, such as "he always bids slowly" irrespective of their actual truth and attempt to form opinions based upon our best evaluation of the empirical evidence presented at committee. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 06:42:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 06:42:32 +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 GAA05623 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 06:42:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id QAA18426 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:42:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199906042042.QAA18426@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:42:15 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 4, 99 07:31:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: Adam Beneschan > >> Since falsecarding is such an important part of Bridge, and > >> everybody knows this (or should), I doubt that the authors of L75B > >> intended it to apply to falsecarding the way it does to auctions. To > >> apply it the same way would be detrimental to the game. > > > >I just don't understand why falsecarding is different from psyching in > >the auction. Sure, in practice the frequency is different, but why > >does that mean the rules should be different? > > They aren't: their effect is. > > Read L40B. If oppos are likely to understand the meaning then it is > legal: well, oppos expect and understand false-cards: oppos do not > expect psyches, so they are treated differently. > I understand that this could come out snide. But I don't mean it that way. Honest question. Does this mean you can't false card against novices? Not that I think there's any point. I play straight down the middle against bad players. Which brings us back to the chicken, egg thread. Is it legal to have a different frequency of false cards and true signals depending on my estimation of the ability of a declarer? Given that I play with a virtual novice these days, I don't signal much and false card a lot if I think declarer is paying attention. (I even have a note that we signal very infrequently.) Even when playing with a much better player though I'd signal much less against a good declarer. I think this is all just common sense and anyone good enough to care about my signals is going to be alive to the possibility of false cards. I can just see a sit down alert. Honest signals. I have reason to believe they'll help us more than you. (And vary them against pro clients.) Anyone else remember the Chthonic story where he asks the opponents if they're bad players? -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 07:23:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:23:21 +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 HAA05792 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:23:07 +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 OAA06361; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 14:22:26 -0700 Message-Id: <199906042122.OAA06361@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jun 1999 16:42:15 PDT." <199906042042.QAA18426@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 14:22:27 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > Does this mean you can't false card against novices? > > Not that I think there's any point. I play straight down the middle > against bad players. > > Which brings us back to the chicken, egg thread. Is it legal > to have a different frequency of false cards and true signals > depending on my estimation of the ability of a declarer? I don't see how this relates to any chicken-and-egg problem. That problem has to do with one side modifying their agreements because of agreements the other side is using, which can cause a problem if both pairs do this. But during play, only the defending side has any agreements. > . . . > Anyone else remember the Chthonic story where he asks the > opponents if they're bad players? I don't remember this particular one. But wouldn't Chthonic have assumed that any opponent who happened to be human was a bad player? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 07:36:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:36:07 +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 HAA05876 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:35:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-159-183.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.183]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA12899 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3758477E.7623F2A6@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 14:39:10 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk KRAllison@aol.com wrote: > > David Stevenson states: > > << The current American bridge usage that self-serving means > lying is not acceptable. >> > > I don't think that most of us on the AC in the ACBL believe that > "self-serving means lying." That is a harsh judgment of us, David. We do > not accept statements that cannot be verified in committee, such as "he > always bids slowly" irrespective of their actual truth and attempt to form > opinions based upon our best evaluation of the empirical evidence presented > at committee. I've been on only a handful of committees, and on no national committees, but I agree with David (combined shudder from DWS and JRM) that such statements are evidence, and must be taken as such. You don't have to believe what people say, and you ought certainly take such statements with a large grain of salt, but sometimes people will tell you the truth, even if uncorroborated. My estimation is that a good committee, backed by a director who made appropriate inquiry at the time of the problem, will accurately conclude whether the person is telling the truth well in excess of 90% of the time. One of the other downsides of defining "self-serving" as "meaningless" is that litigious people will use this in their bridge case. Well, at least one -- I spent one appeal regarding a defensive card played (or not played) quietly explaining that I had seen the card and that it was in a position to be seen by the defender's partner; the appellants screeched that everything I said was "self-serving" and, therefore, not credible. The director had not asked me to name the card at the table, so I hadn't; the appellants said my failure to do so then showed I had not seen the card. Can this be right? My self-serving statement was accurate. This must be weighed as evidence. How much it is weighed is an open question, one for the committee members to determine. If both of us are making "self-serving" statements, then you've got no evidence if you don't consider it. Credibility is an issue that committees must not ignore. Good committees can recognize truth-tellers. It just isn't that hard. --JRM > > Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 07:44:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:44:30 +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 HAA05913 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 07:44:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh6p.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.68.217]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA25460 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990604174206.007443a8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 17:42:06 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:19 PM 6/3/99 EDT, Schoderb wrote: >In a message dated 6/3/99 6:59:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > >> Sure, in practice the frequency is different, but why >> does that mean the rules should be different? > >Who says they should be different? > Almost everyone! It is nearly comical to imagine a declarer seeking redress because he was taken in by a successful falsecard, even if it could be shown that the falsecarder's partner was well-acquainted with his partner's dastardly defensive techniques (and failed to alert-- the nerve!). The fact is that deceptive card play is treated much more leniently, in practice, than deceptive bidding, despite the fact that the Laws make no meaningful distinction between the two categories of deception. It is this inconsistency that Steve, and Marvin earlier, have been asking us to consider, and so far their observations have not received much serious response. I think that there are good, practical reasons for distinguishing between deceptive card play and deceptive bidding, even if the Laws recognize no such principles. Two considerations in particular seem relevant to me. 1) In the bidding, communication is much more central to the process than in defense. While most passes are comparatively non-communicative, nearly every bid, double, and redouble, conveys (by agreement) fairly specific information. In contrast, the playing of a particular card to a trick tends to meet a wider array of needs than just communication (following suit, covering an honor, winning the trick). This means that opportunities for communication are considerably less clear-cut, and "psyching" less easy to define and identify. 2) In the bidding, there is a symmetry between the two sides that is absent in the play. Clearly declarer has the right to use deceptive techniques, and it seems manifestly unfair to deny those same tools to the defense simply because defensive carding also carries a communications component that is analogous to what happens in the bidding. At least that's my interpretation of why these two categories of deception are handled differently. Whether this is the correct way of handling them, or whether the orthodox approach to legal interpretation requires a consistent approach to them, is not clear to me. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 09:13:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:13:02 +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 JAA06056 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:12:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip97.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.97]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990604231244.UVDO23271.fep4@ip97.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:12:44 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 01:12:44 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37585480.2731888@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 JAA06057 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:57:41 EDT, KRAllison@aol.com wrote: >We do >not accept statements that cannot be verified in committee, such as "he >always bids slowly" irrespective of their actual truth ... If "do not accept" means that you disregard them completely, I would find such a policy much too strict. Self-serving statements that cannot be verified should of course be given only limited weight, in particular if there is opposing evidence. But to have a general policy of not accepting such statements means IMO that you lose a lot of information that is quite likely to be true and useful. Many players will convince themselves - and try to convince the TD and AC - that the motives for their actions were pure and (for example) unaffected by UI, but very few players will lie deliberately. So if the information given is of a kind that is obviously either true or a direct lie, then it is usually a good bet that it is true. >... and attempt to form >opinions based upon our best evaluation of the empirical evidence presented >at committee. That is of course fine. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 09:21:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:21:21 +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 JAA06085 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:21:10 +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 10q3Gn-000Oj0-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:21:02 +0000 Message-ID: <77vPPIA4GFW3EwBz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:22:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Advice from on high. References: <199906042042.QAA18426@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <199906042042.QAA18426@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: >David Stevenson writes: >> >> Steve Willner wrote: >> >> From: Adam Beneschan >> >> Since falsecarding is such an important part of Bridge, and >> >> everybody knows this (or should), I doubt that the authors of L75B >> >> intended it to apply to falsecarding the way it does to auctions. To >> >> apply it the same way would be detrimental to the game. >> > >> >I just don't understand why falsecarding is different from psyching in >> >the auction. Sure, in practice the frequency is different, but why >> >does that mean the rules should be different? >> >> They aren't: their effect is. >> >> Read L40B. If oppos are likely to understand the meaning then it is >> legal: well, oppos expect and understand false-cards: oppos do not >> expect psyches, so they are treated differently. >> >I understand that this could come out snide. But I don't mean >it that way. Honest question. > >Does this mean you can't false card against novices? No, I do not think so. I think that it is reasonable to treat general bridge knowledge as existing even if your current oppos are too inexperienced to know 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 Sat Jun 5 09:21:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA06096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:21:20 +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 JAA06086 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:21:10 +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 10q3Gn-000Oj1-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:21:02 +0000 Message-ID: <17IM$NAkJFW3Ewhs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:25:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Clear enough References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >David Stevenson states: > ><< The current American bridge usage that self-serving means > lying is not acceptable. >> > >I don't think that most of us on the AC in the ACBL believe that >"self-serving means lying." That is a harsh judgment of us, David. We do >not accept statements that cannot be verified in committee, such as "he >always bids slowly" irrespective of their actual truth and attempt to form >opinions based upon our best evaluation of the empirical evidence presented >at committee. I am sorry: it was not meant personally, but I agree that it looked that way. However, if you read the reports of appeals, and comments made here and on RGB, there is a substantial minority [at the very least] who do equate the two things. -- 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 Jun 5 10:18:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 10:18:16 +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 KAA06230 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 10:18:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from p29s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.42] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10q49s-0002dJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:17:57 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:22:57 +0100 Message-ID: <01beaee9$8fbd1860$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: Friday, June 04, 1999 8:37 PM Subject: Re: establishment >Anne Jones wrote: > >>No No No. Read Law 62 thorough. It allows for this situation. When cards >>have been played, they may be withdrawn. It is anticipated that this may >>happen. > > L62 refers to cards played after the revoke and before attention is >drawn to it, which is not the current situation: it is a card played >after attention is drawn that is the problem. As I understand it, L62 refers to cards played to tricks and which are affected by the subsequent correction of an unestablished revoke, which is what we have here. Revoker has realised, and attention has been drawn, before his partner has played. So revoke is not established and must be corrected. The cards played subsequent to the drawing of attention to the revoke do not, I am sure, establish the revoke.[L62 would say so, and it does not] The TD should have been called immediately, but as David says, inertia may be the cause of the play. However L62 does not put on the TD the onus of a decision. Play subsequent to the announcement is cancelled. The revoke must be corrected. Card withdrawn by declarer are withdrawn without penalty, and as it has been pointed out, if declarer choses to play the same card, defender may not change his, but only because it is a major penalty card and must be played at the first legal opportunity, and provided his last play was legal, this would be the opportunity. [ an interesting point would be, if his last play was a revoke] If L62 did not apply to exactly this situation, what would be the reason for the inclusion in this law, the clauses allowing cards subsequently played to be withdrawn? We would just have L64, the man has followed to a subsequent trick so the revoke is established. No. That's not how it is. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 12:42:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:42:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06416 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:41:54 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com (230) by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qDKa021389; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 22:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3951f9cb.2489e835@aol.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 22:40:53 EDT Subject: Re: Clear enough 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 David Stevenson writes: << there is a substantial minority [at the very least] who do equate the two things. >> Well then perhaps it is a good thing that we've come to minor blows over this - they should read and learn that the two are definitely not the same!! Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 13:51:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:51:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06519 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxye4-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA23356 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:50:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990604234841.00874e70@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 23:48:41 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <77vPPIA4GFW3EwBz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <199906042042.QAA18426@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <199906042042.QAA18426@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:22 PM 6/4/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>> Read L40B. If oppos are likely to understand the meaning then it is >>> legal: well, oppos expect and understand false-cards: oppos do not >>> expect psyches, so they are treated differently. >>> >>I understand that this could come out snide. But I don't mean >>it that way. Honest question. >> >>Does this mean you can't false card against novices? > > No, I do not think so. I think that it is reasonable to treat general >bridge knowledge as existing even if your current oppos are too >inexperienced to know it. Does this mean you believe falsecards are general birdge knowledge while psyches are not? TIm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 15:30:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 15:30:23 +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 PAA06697 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 15:30:16 +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; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:29:01 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01b101beaeab$e82c2380$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604111427.006f3eb4@pop.cais.com> <033101beaea0$c06816c0$bd294b0c@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 01:24:25 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >In franchised games the semi-autonomy of private clubs does not give them >the right to ignore the Laws (e.g., cannot bar psychs, which many do) or >ACBL regulations. The regulation concerning convention cards is included >in *Duplicate Decisions*, the ACBL guide to club directors. Marv, Are we talking about the requirement for each pair to have two identical convention cards? I thought that only applied at Sectionals and above. That seems to be the way it's worded on the ACBL's web site, anyway. And it's _certainly_ true that the clubs around here don't enforce it (even at STACs). I've been considering ways of trying to persuade players to have two cards, and to exchange them with opps, for example, by not keeping score ourselves on the inside of _our_ cards, and by giving our cards to opps along with "here, this is yours for the round," or something similar. I expect to get a few stares, but... If I can legitimately complain to a club TD that he's violating his charter by not requiring pairs to comply with this reg, perhaps I'll do that, too. 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/AwUBN1i1272UW3au93vOEQI4QwCg1yAuyhzXVfPp5KvRZl2g3Fg35NkAnRxZ mn/WFgILT2ebonrfohNuWG0w =HuZ0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 16:00:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:00:13 +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 QAA06750 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:00:06 +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 WAA08892 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 22:59:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01f801beaf18$215a6240$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Clear enough Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 22:47:20 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 11:22 AM Subject: Re: Clear enough > Karen wrote: > >I concur with Grattan that a single occurrence does not create an > >understanding.. however, a single occurrence brought to a committee (and of > >course the statements about "first time" may be taken to be self-serving) > >creates enough stir in my opinion to make partner well aware the next time > >such a situation arises that his partner might be "doing it again." Hence my > >comments. > > I feel I must re-affirm what I said earlier: I strongly disagree with > this. You are saying that one occasion does not constitute an agreement > but then you warn a pair they now have an agreement. That is wrong. > > Please note that a "self-serving" statement is one that is self- > serving. The current American bridge usage that self-serving means > lying is not acceptable. > Don't have access to the OED, but my huge Random House Dictionary of the English Language gives this definition of "self-serving": "Preoccupied with one's own interest, often disregarding the truth..." Karen uses the word correctly, but ACBL ACs misuse the the word by applying it to the statements of anyone who testifies on his/her own behalf. Any such testimony is deemed "self-serving," not to be believed, which is indeed not acceptable. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 16:30:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:30:19 +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 QAA06784 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:30:13 +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 XAA12896 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <022f01beaf1c$581b93e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990604111427.006f3eb4@pop.cais.com><033101beaea0$c06816c0$bd294b0c@default> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:22:55 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > >In franchised games the semi-autonomy of private clubs does not give them > >the right to ignore the Laws (e.g., cannot bar psychs, which many do) or > >ACBL regulations. The regulation concerning convention cards is included > >in *Duplicate Decisions*, the ACBL guide to club directors. > > Marv, > > Are we talking about the requirement for each pair to have two identical > convention cards? Yes, as well as other cc regulations. > I thought that only applied at Sectionals and above. That > seems to be the way it's worded on the ACBL's web site, anyway. And it's > _certainly_ true that the clubs around here don't enforce it (even at > STACs). According to *Duplicate Decisions*, the guide for Club Directors, page 35, the cc regulations apply "In ACBL competition." However, the web site's version does indeed say the cc regulations apply to sectional and higher games. It's not enforced at NABCs or regionals, so it's not surprising that it's not enforced at STACS. > > I've been considering ways of trying to persuade players to have two cards, > and to exchange them with opps, for example, by not keeping score ourselves > on the inside of _our_ cards, and by giving our cards to opps along with > "here, this is yours for the round," or something similar. I expect to get > a few stares, but... If I can legitimately complain to a club TD that he's > violating his charter by not requiring pairs to comply with this reg, > perhaps I'll do that, too. > Great idea. Of course players cannot look at the opposing cc after the bidding has started, except when it is their turn to bid or play. You might ask Memphis about whether the rule applies to clubs or not. Just send an e-mail to club@acbl.org. Tell them about the page 35 statement, and don't mention the web site! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 16:40:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA06809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:40:29 +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 QAA06804 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:40:21 +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 XAA13964 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <025301beaf1d$c0d13100$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990603082102.006f0ac8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990604103910.00692574@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 23:28:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:07 PM 6/3/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > >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. > > > >Modifying the degree of aggressiveness or conservatism connected > >with making any call is appropriate for reasons of opponents' skill > >levels, state of score, "table feel," etc., but not for reasons > >connected with the defensive measures being used vs the call. It is > >permissible to make a call that violates system, however, if it is > >not based on a partnership understanding (L40A). > > Your CC says "light overcalls". Nobody vul, 2nd seat, xx/Qxx/xxx/KQxxx, > 1S-? You overcall 2C. Two rounds later, same conditions, same hand, same > auction. This time you pass. That is not switching to sound overcalls, that is exercising judgment as to how unsound a light overcall can be. > > By Marv's reasoning, you have just "switch[ed] to sound overcalls... a > change of system", as you have "modif[ied] the degree of agressiveness or > conservatism connected with making any call." Where did I say that modifying aggressiveness or conservatism constitutes a change of system? It seems to me I said just the opposite! I probably don't express myself well in these *ad-lib* writings, so I'll clarify: You can't change system because of a defense encountered. You can change system to incorporate a defense against a method encountered. Reasonable deviations in the degree of aggressiveness or conservatism of a call are not changes of system. > Thus by ACBL regulation, if > you chose to vary your calls for an inappropriate reason ("because an > opposing pair is playing penalty doubles"), that is illegal. New subject, this is not style and judgment but a change of system to foil an opposing defense. Surely you must play what is on your cc, and the current ACBL cc has boxes to be checked for simple overcalls ("often four cards" and "very light style"), with blanks for "usual" HCP range. If you want to check both boxes and put 6 HCP and up for range, while adding a statement "but not against penalty doublers," then that would be proper disclosure. It would also be an illegal change of system, based on an opposing defense against overcalls. And, of course, to change system without disclosing it would be contrary to the Laws. The ACBL has every right per L40E to restrict methods in this manner, whether or not others agree with the policy. > > When you sat down at those two tables, though, you had some idea of the > state of the score, you saw who your opponents were and knew, or formed > some impression of, their skill levels, and you perused their convention > card -- along with a couple of hundred other, mostly subtler, factors that > might have effected your subsequent bidding decisions. Then when your RHO > opened 1S, your "'table feel'" (aka intuition, or subconscious reasoning) > told you either to overcall or to pass. Did it do so based determinatively > on the fact that your opponents were playing penalty doubles, as opposed to > one or any combination of the hundreds of other factors that might have > affected your decision? *You* don't know -- so how can the TD or AC? It > might have, of course, and "we don't read minds". So (unless, on this > occasion you had the particular good fortune to make your two different > calls against two pairs who had identically marked CCs), saying that you > may not vary your call based on your opponent's methods (or for any other > specific reason) is, for practical purposes, the same as saying that you > may not vary your call, period. And that is unacceptable. Just don't look to see if opponents are playing penalty doubles, and your conscience will be clear. Or, if you know anyway, follow your conscience. No TD or AC will penalize you for "sins of omission" that involve avoidance of system calls that seem dangerous, for it is only "sins of commission" that are subject to scrutiny and possible penalties. > > Marv offers L40A as a way out of this impasse: "It is permissible to make > a call that violates system, however, if it is not based on a partnership > understanding (L40A)." To show that this doesn't work, let's stipulate > that our decision to make different calls *was* based on a partnership > understanding... > > At the second table, where I chose to pass, my opponents were Smith and > Jones. The last two times we made light overcalls against them, they > doubled us for a number. On the second occasion, as we left the table, > pard said, "Those guys are tough; we'd better tighten up our overcalls > against them." So I am prepared to admit that I passed against Smith and > Jones specifically, where I would most likely have overcalled against some > other pair. The proper statement would be, "We'd better tighten up our overcalls before any game in which these guys are going to be our opponents." Then change the cc to reflect that. > > Why did Smith and Jones get those numbers against us on the two previous > occasions? Was it because they're the best players in the club? Was it > because they double more agressively than the other pairs? Was it because > they have a particular penchant for low-level defense? Was it because > they're prejudiced against skinny bald guys with glasses and made a special > effort to "get" us? Or was it because their defensive methods were more > suited than others' to extracting penalties from light overcalls? > > Do I know? Do I care? Should I? My answer is no, no and no. Marv's > answer is that I had better if I want to play by the rules. > Do we really want to treat "Those guys are tough; we'd better tighten up > our overcalls against them" as a potentially illegal agreement? > Tightening up because they are tough is style and judgment, perfectly okay. Tightening up because they play penalty doubles is another matter, but something you can probably get away with if it's not overdone to the extent that you are obviously not playing what is on your cc. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 17:07:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 17:07:43 +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 RAA06867 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 17:07:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem25.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.25] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10qAY2-0003H4-00; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 08:07:20 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 08:06:01 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "How use doth breed a habit in a man" (T.G.of V.) -ooOoo- ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) > Date: 04 June 1999 13:51 > > At 07:08 PM 6/3/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > >++++ I do not know how I chanced on these words and I think > >I must have missed the previous cloud. But for what it is worth > >I am not clear where the discussion is going. > >Eric Landau has been kind enough to set out the background to >the discussion for me :-. > The issue being addressed in my earlier post and Richard's response was > this: If you play a freewheeling system that gives you the scope for such > choices, you will select your calls based on a variety of factors, which > may include who your opponents are (e.g. their level of skill, or their > methods). Over time, patterns will emerge, which partner will observe, > thus creating an implicit agreement (subject to disclosure, as Grattan > points out). But when that happens, you are suddenly in violation of the > ACBL regulation that prohibits varying your agreements based on the > identity of your opponents. +++ If I comment I must be careful. Fairly enough you are discussing questions that are domestic to the ACBL and it is an impediment to comment from me that I have a WBF hat to wear and , however much I protest - as my WBFLC colleagues would have me do - that what I say is here just a personal opinion, I am still seen by many as wearing that hat. On the other hand your style is restrained and in the interests of international understanding I do want to gather what I can of the ACBL approach to the laws. +++ > Eric goes on to say that there are two problems to address: > > (1) The ACBL regulation obviates the fundamental principle stated by > Grattan, "There is freedom of choice in what you choose to tell partner, so > long as there are no concealed understandings." As such, it would appear > to be illegal by L40E1 ("such a regulation must not restrict style and > judgment"). +++ I learnt about bridge a lot of years ago, playing rubber bridge with Culbertson's books as my tutor at school 1938 onwards and during wartime service with the Royal Navy 1941-46. I switched to duplicate around 1952 in local Liverpool leagues, by which time the British publications on Acol and other approach forcing methods had changed my methods. The point of this bit of history is that in learning the basics of the game I read much about using psychology in assessing the style of an opponent and adjusting my tactics to my judgement of him. I find it difficult to believe there is no place now for tactical adjustment of one's choice of action according to the perceived character of the opponent of the moment. What is more, I doubt that partner can pick up a pattern too readily if this is what you are doing. In this respect, however, I do think each partnership must be considered separately for evidence of a pattern (and thus an implicit agreement) since a general statement can hardly cover all. There is a problem that some pairs do rationalize their actions, maybe unwittingly. I can contribute something on the words "must not restrict style and judgment". When we persuaded Edgar that the need to control some of the wilder spirits should allow of regulation requiring use of the same meanings for calls both sides of the table, he insisted these words must go in to prevent repression of players' freedom to choose amongst available calls according to their individual styles, so long as each available call had an agreed meaning for the partnership. He spoke somewhat disparagingly of the likelihood that some minor authoritarian regimes would want to take away the player's right to make his own judgment of his action; it can be added that one European representative had just given us a horrifying account of the way he ran the game in his bailiwick and had pulled the rug from under my feet when I was trying to obtain for responsible regimes a better defined power to govern the game according to their own national characteristics. Well, maybe Edgar was right to doubt that all of us Europeans, let alone the Rest of the World, were fit to regulate the game in our own territories!(?).+++ > (2) When you play a freewheeling system that lets you choose alternative > calls in a given situation, you don't go into a precise and structured > intellectual exercise in analysis that gives probabalistic weights to all > of the factors involved in your decision to choose your call; rather, you > maintain some, perhaps less than fully conscious, awareness of those > factors at all times, and when you make a decision you pick the call that > "feels right" intuitively at the moment. Who your opponents are is one of > those factors, but not even you, much less some regulating authority, can > possibly know just how much that, as opposed to all those other things you > might have in mind, contributed to your choice of call, or whether it was > the particular factor that was determinative in any specific decision. If > it comes to adjudication, the adjudicators, in line with the currently > dominant view of application of the laws, will (should) find that your > decision *might* have been based on your opponents' identity -- "we don't > read minds" -- and is thus a violation of the regulation. When you put all > these things together, you discover that if you play a freewheeling system > you will eventually be in violation perforce. When you "fly whatever cloud > you choose", you take on a burden of proof that your choice wasn't effected > by the identity of your opponents. The effect of the regulation is thus to > make your freewheeling system itself a de facto violation. > +++ Well, I have read this over and over, but I am lost. When I have played from time to time against some of my regular partners I have on accasion deliberately done something they 'knew' my discipline would not allow me to do. No way would I let them read me like a book. So I changed my style because of who my opponent was. Surely no-one pretends a power to stop me from doing this? That is exactly the kind of thing Edgar was on about - my partnership agreements as to the meanings of my calls were not affected, only my freedom of choice amongst those calls as Law 40E provides - and partner would have no basis for knowing I was not my usual self. ~~ Grattan ~~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 17:56:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 17:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from m2.boston.juno.com (m2.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.199]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06907 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 17:56:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from kardwizard@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id ECB7S222; Sat, 05 Jun 1999 03:55:49 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 02:57:45 -0500 Subject: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Message-ID: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4-8,10,12,14,16,18-20,22,24,26-28,30,32,34,36, 38,40-50 From: Sandy Singer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for this group: North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads the ace; dummy comes down. All players see dummy as, K10xx Kxxx x AKQx West switches to a heart, and South makes six spades. Later, East-West's teammates cannot understand the result, since there are two diamond losers and the opening leader has ace-king. East-West disagree, saying that there was only one diamond in dummy. Not so, say their teammates. The other team is consulted and it turns out that there were two diamonds in North's hand, but he had, obviously (and, it is assumed, innocently) had the other diamond with the king-third in hearts. The tournament director asks when South noticed that there were two diamonds in dummy. South said at the fifth trick (by which time six spades had been made). The director suggested that North-South concede six spades one down, since it was dummy's fault for having mixed a diamond with a heart. South does not agree, claims six spades made. The director lets the score stand since he says he cannot find any rule against it, but says he will bring the case to a higher committee for a ruling. Although he could not adjust the score to six spades one down, he found South's action in not conceding one down unethical and improper, a violation of the Proprieties of the Duplicate Laws, especially of this sentence in The Scope of the Law: "The Laws are not designed to prevent dishonorable practices, but rather to redress damage inadvertently done." Do you think the director's actions correct? Will have the 'ruling' for you tomorrow. Sandy Singer Nashville ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 23:38:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 23:38:28 +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 XAA07379 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 23:38:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip217.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.217]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990605133804.WHNH7381.fep2@ip217.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 15:38:04 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 15:38:03 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <375b2467.2110444@post12.tele.dk> References: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> In-Reply-To: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> 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 XAA07380 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 02:57:45 -0500, Sandy Singer wrote: >Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for >this group: > >North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads >the ace; dummy comes >down. All players see dummy as, > >K10xx Kxxx x AKQx > >West switches to a heart, and South makes six spades. Later, East-West's >teammates cannot >understand the result, since there are two diamond losers and the opening >leader has ace-king. I assume that "later" is still within the correction period - otherwise there is nothing to discuss. >East-West disagree, saying that there was only one diamond in dummy. Not >so, say their >teammates. The other team is consulted and it turns out that there were >two diamonds in North's >hand, but he had, obviously (and, it is assumed, innocently) had the >other diamond with the >king-third in hearts. > >The tournament director asks when South noticed that there were two >diamonds in dummy. >South said at the fifth trick (by which time six spades had been made). I would hope that most South players in this position would call the TD at that time, but there is no requirement to do so in the law (L72B3). >The director suggested that >North-South concede six spades one down, since it was dummy's fault for >having mixed a >diamond with a heart. The TD's job is to give a ruling, not to suggest that the players agree on a score in an unlawful way. >South does not agree, claims six spades made. The director lets the score >stand since he says he >cannot find any rule against it, L41D, L84E. > but says he will bring the case to a >higher committee for a ruling. Since the TD was unable to rule correctly himself, this is sensible. >Although he could not adjust the score to six spades one down, he found >South's action in not >conceding one down unethical and improper, a violation of the Proprieties >of the Duplicate Laws, >especially of this sentence in The Scope of the Law: "The Laws are not >designed to prevent >dishonorable practices, but rather to redress damage inadvertently done." This is hopeless. The TD is in effect telling South that the rules of the game say that South has won his contract, yet blaming South for not changing his result to a different one. Where does this TD find a law that allows players to agree on a score other than the one obtained at the table? >Do you think the >director's actions correct? Somebody should teach the director that (a) There are laws about this: adjust to 11 tricks; (b) Players are not under any circumstances allowed to agree a result which is not the one obtained. Nobody but the director or AC can adjust a score. For a director to try to negotiate an artificial and unlawful result with the players is ridiculous. There is no "unusual dilemma" here - just a simple book ruling. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 5 23:40:02 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 23:40:02 +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 XAA07393 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 23:39:55 +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; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:38:40 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01beaee9$8fbd1860$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:34:34 -0400 To: "Anne Jones" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Anne Jones wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: >>>No No No. Read Law 62 thorough. It allows for this situation. When cards >>>have been played, they may be withdrawn. It is anticipated that this may >>>happen. >> >> L62 refers to cards played after the revoke and before attention is >>drawn to it, which is not the current situation: it is a card played >>after attention is drawn that is the problem. > >As I understand it, L62 refers to cards played to tricks and which >are affected by the subsequent correction of an unestablished >revoke, which is what we have here. It seems to me that Law 62C refers to the revoke trick, not to subsequent tricks. >Revoker has realised, and attention has been drawn, before his >partner has played. So revoke is not established and must be corrected. >The cards played subsequent to the drawing of attention to the revoke >do not, I am sure, establish the revoke.[L62 would say so, and it does not] Law 62 doesn't say when a revoke is established; Law 63 does. Law 63A1 says that _any_ play by the offending side to a subsequent trick, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke. West made an illegal play; the revoke is established. Some have argued that paradoxes are not allowed, therefor West's facing of his card after East calls attention to his revoke is "not a play." I don't buy that, it seems specious to me. The action was not inadvertant; West obviously _intended_ to play a spade on South's lead of the King. Therefor, the action _is_ a play, as it conforms to both the definition of "play" in Chapter One of the Laws, and to Law 45A. >The TD should have been called immediately, but as David says, inertia >may be the cause of the play. However L62 does not put on the TD the >onus of a decision. Play subsequent to the announcement is cancelled. West's illegal play may be withdrawn [Law 47B]; that doesn't affect the establishment of the revoke. >The revoke must be corrected. No. >Card withdrawn by declarer are withdrawn without penalty, and as >it has been pointed out, if declarer choses to play the same card, >defender may not change his, but only because it is a major penalty card >and must be played at the first legal opportunity, and provided his last >play was legal, this would be the opportunity. Agreed. >[ an interesting point would be, if his last play was a revoke] Ooh. Let's not go there right now. :-) >If L62 did not apply to exactly this situation, what would be the reason for >the inclusion in this law, the clauses allowing cards subsequently played >to be withdrawn? To deal with cards played to the revoke trick. >We would just have L64, the man has followed to a >subsequent trick so the revoke is established. No. That's not how it is. We disagree. Sorry. :-) Revoke is established; West's illegally played second spade is a major penalty card; South may withdraw the KS without penalty, if he wishes. After play ceases, offending side gets a one or two trick penalty [Law64A2]. Clearly there _is_ a paradox here; I was going to suggest that Law 63A1 is where that needs to be clarified, but after your question regarding 62C, I see it's _there_ the clarification is needed. That section should be amended so that it's clear it applies to the revoke trick, and not to subsequent tricks. Of course, that still leaves the paradox between "must correct" and "cannot be corrected." I might have suggested "must _try to_ correct", but I think that might open another bag of worms. Perhaps "must correct absent further irregularity" would work. 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/AwUBN1kooL2UW3au93vOEQIBPwCbBwL2K5aECT4GOgcKD0yfE7K/TNoAn0iG lWxk2V0GF+3WUqxf/gfWsPxN =FBJi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 02:03:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:03:12 +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 CAA10067 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:03:04 +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 JAA17579 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <027e01beaf6c$57325e00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 08:55:18 -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 Sandy Singer wrote: > Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for > this group: > > North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads > the ace; dummy comes > down. All players see dummy as, > > K10xx Kxxx x AKQx > > West switches to a heart, and South makes six spades. Later, East-West's > teammates cannot > understand the result, since there are two diamond losers and the opening > leader has ace-king. > East-West disagree, saying that there was only one diamond in dummy. Not > so, say their > teammates. The other team is consulted and it turns out that there were > two diamonds in North's > hand, but he had, obviously (and, it is assumed, innocently) had the > other diamond with the > king-third in hearts. > > The tournament director asks when South noticed that there were two > diamonds in dummy. > South said at the fifth trick (by which time six spades had been made). > The director suggested that > North-South concede six spades one down, since it was dummy's fault for > having mixed a > diamond with a heart. > > South does not agree, claims six spades made. The director lets the score > stand since he says he > cannot find any rule against it, but says he will bring the case to a > higher committee for a ruling. > Although he could not adjust the score to six spades one down, he found > South's action in not > conceding one down unethical and improper, a violation of the Proprieties > of the Duplicate Laws, > especially of this sentence in The Scope of the Law: "The Laws are not > designed to prevent > dishonorable practices, but rather to redress damage inadvertently done." > Do you think the > director's actions correct? > No. He is right that no penalty is assessed "if the revoke was failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand." (L64B3) The director's comments are improper, unless he has evidence that dummy deliberately hid the second diamond. Players are not obligated "to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side" (L72B3). There is nothing in the Laws hinting that failure to do so is in any way unethical. Since there is no penalty for a revoke by dummy, the point is moot. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 02:32:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:32:18 +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 CAA10140 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:32:07 +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 JAA21718 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02a101beaf70$64f61780$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:27:48 -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 I wrote: ###### No. He is right that no penalty is assessed "if the revoke was failing to play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the table, including a card from dummy's hand." (L64B3) The director's comments are improper, unless he has evidence that dummy deliberately hid the second diamond. Players are not obligated "to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of law committed by one's own side" (L72B3). There is nothing in the Laws hinting that failure to do so is in any way unethical. Since there is no penalty for a revoke by dummy, the point is moot. ###### Guess I was reading too fast, there seems to have been no revoke. The second paragraph still applies, I believe. Although dummy "could have known" (L72B1) that the hidden diamond "would be likely to damage the non-offending side," the usual understanding (as in L64B3) is that "everyone is responsible for the dummy." Had a second diamond been led, dummy would have revoked, no penalty. I don't see that it makes any difference that a revoke was not committed. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 02:42:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:42:21 +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 CAA10206 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:42:14 +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 MAA12660; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:42:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:42:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906051642.MAA28343@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: kardwizard@juno.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> (message from Sandy Singer on Sat, 5 Jun 1999 02:57:45 -0500) Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for > this group: > North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads > the ace; dummy comes down. All players see dummy as, > K10xx Kxxx x AKQx > West switches to a heart, and South makes six spades. Later, > East-West's teammates cannot understand the result, since there are > two diamond losers and the opening leader has ace-king. East-West > disagree, saying that there was only one diamond in dummy. Not so, say > their teammates. The other team is consulted and it turns out that > there were two diamonds in North's hand, but he had, obviously (and, > it is assumed, innocently) had the other diamond with the king-third > in hearts. > The director suggested that North-South concede six spades one down, > since it was dummy's fault for having mixed a diamond with a heart. "Concede" is not the right word here. The TD should be making a ruling, which all four players may agree to or appeal. > South does not agree, claims six spades made. The director lets the > score stand since he says he cannot find any rule against it. Dummy violated Law 41D, which says that cards are arranged in suits. There is no specified penalty, but the TD is supposed to provide redress if the non-offenders are damaged, and they certainly were damaged here. > but says he will bring the case to a higher committee for a ruling. AT least the TD got this right; he can always take a case to the committee himself if he isn't sure of the proper ruling. > Although he could not adjust the score to six spades one down, he > found South's action in not conceding one down unethical and improper, > a violation of the Proprieties of the Duplicate Laws, especially of > this sentence in The Scope of the Law: "The Laws are not designed to > prevent dishonorable practices, but rather to redress damage > inadvertently done." This sounds like grounds for sending the TD to a C&E committee; he seems to be accusing South of "dishonorable practices". Knowingly accepting an incorrect score is such a practice, but that is not what South did. Everyone agrees that the mis-sorted hand was an accident, and either the Laws should redress the damage or not. It is not dishonorable to accept a gain from an accident; the TD needs to rule whether this gain was the result of an accident, or of an infraction for which there should be an adjustment. South may make a suggestion to the TD about the proper ruling (as, for example, when he requests a waiver of a penalty), but he is obligated to accept the TD's ruling or appeal it through the proper channels, not to negate it by conceding a trick which he did not lose. The TD could have said something like, "I believe down one is an equitable result, and I would like to make that ruling with the consent of all four players. If you do not agree, I will ask the [chief TD, appeals committee] to make a ruling." -- 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 Jun 6 02:49:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:49:14 +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 CAA10225 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:49:07 +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 MAA12737 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:48:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906051648.MAA28462@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <027e01beaf6c$57325e00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: [Dummy has two diamonds but one of them is mixed with the hearts; opening leader leads the DA, then switches] > No. He is right that no penalty is assessed "if the revoke was failing to > play any card faced on the table or belonging to a hand faced on the > table, including a card from dummy's hand." (L64B3) Actually, there was no revoke, but if there was, the TD is still required to restore equity after a revoke not subject to penalty (Law 64C), and that would give the defense another trick. What happened instead is that the defense was misled by dummy's mis-sorted hand and failed to cash the setting trick; equity should be restored here under Law 12A or 84E. -- 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 Jun 6 02:52:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:52:23 +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 CAA10244 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:52:15 +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 JAA24002 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02b901beaf73$33fd7120$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:43:34 -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: > When I have played > from time to time against some of my regular partners I have on accasion > deliberately done something they 'knew' my discipline would not allow > me to do. No way would I let them read me like a book. So I changed my > style because of who my opponent was. Surely no-one pretends a power to > stop me from doing this? That is exactly the kind of thing Edgar was on > about - my partnership agreements as to the meanings of my calls were > not affected, only my freedom of choice amongst those calls as Law 40E > provides - and partner would have no basis for knowing I was not my usual > self. No one that I know of pretends a power to stop you from doing this, including me. Playing in ACBL-land, as long as you don't change system (i.e., as shown on the cc) other than to incorporate a disclosed defense against a method encountered, changes in style and judgment are perfectly acceptable. You can even violate system, if partner doesn't understand what you are doing. Moreover, it's okay to incorporate a defense against a defense. You unexpectedly meet some penalty doublers of overcalls, so you change from natural redoubles to S. O. S. redoubles, that's your right. I don't see the problem here, someone please enlighten me. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 02:54:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:54:04 +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 CAA10259 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 02:53:57 +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 MAA12823 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:53:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906051653.MAA28491@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <02a101beaf70$64f61780$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > Although dummy "could have known" (L72B1) that the hidden diamond "would > be likely to damage the non-offending side," the usual understanding (as > in L64B3) is that "everyone is responsible for the dummy." I could see this applying to a 12-card dummy; all four players are at fault if a hand is played with such a dummy. However, dummy's cards are not normally spread so that it is possible to check that all the hearts are actually hearts, and it is not normal for a defender who sees K754 of hearts in dummy with only the number of the H7 visible to move the H5 in order to confirm that the H7 is really the D7. -- 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 Jun 6 04:57:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA10464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 04:57:29 +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 EAA10459 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 04:57:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id NAA09110 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:35:51 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906051835.NAA09110@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:35:51 -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 > > People are trying to find a legal means to give declarer more than > > one trick. The one that seems obvious to try is L64C, arguing that > > declarer has been 'insufficiently compensated for damage caused'. I think > > that's what most of us have been abbreviating 'equity'. > > > > David has stated that Equity in this case was 1 trick to > Declarer. > (meaning that this would be the number of tricks that > declarer would get without the revoke) > > That means that even with the two-trick penalty, declarer > only gains one. > With a one-trick penalty declarer has gained nothing. > That would make you see that it is not so bad to give two > tricks. I agree that it is 'not so bad'. I just don't see any reason why we _need_ to do it. > However, even if equity is only 0 tricks to declarer, and > the one-trick penalty is already a bonus, this is then one > of those rare cases where the revoke actually costs two > tricks. Not so bad either IMO. Revoke law, for better or for worse, is different from most other laws in the book, since it contains penalties not necessarily related in any way to equity. Perhaps, as some have argued, the laws would be better if we had more such laws--but in fact, we do not. See below. > > a) But in this case the 'non-offenders' are also the side that has > > made the concession[/claim]. We are not giving the offenders the benefit > > of the doubt _qua offenders_, we are giving them the benefit of the doubt > > _qua_ acquiescing side. > > Why is everyone so concerned about the claim. The claim is > simple. Declarer cannot win any trick with the remaining > cards. Clear - no problem. See below. > The real problem is with the revoke. Is this a two penalty > revoke or a one penalty. > To know this, we need to examine further play. But further > play is curtailed through the claim. > > I have stated that it is clear that the revoke penalty > should not only deal with actual tricks, but also with > fictitious tricks, that are "played" after a claim. I agree completely. But claim/concession law clearly suggests that we are to resolve any doubts in favor of the non-claiming side. L71, for example, makes it clear that one cannot take back a concession unless there was no legal [A] or normal [C] play that would give declarer more tricks. Declarer conceded both tricks to West. There is a normal and legal play of the cards that gives both tricks to West. L71 forbids declarer from demanding an extra revoke trick by giving a trick to east. > What is the problem of then taking the worst case to > offenders (= revokers) when there are several possible lines > after the claim ? Because claim law tells us how to resolve a claim, and clearly suggests doubtful points are to be resolved against claimer. Concession law clearly says one may not take back a concession under the circumstances given in this case. > > b) I don't feel sorry for the declarer just because he didn't get > > a 'bonus trick'. Again, the laws are not primarily designed to punish > > offenders, but to restore equity. Equity has been restored. Why strain > > to look for a law that will allow us to punish the revoke for an extra > > trick beyond any damage that was done? > > I, personally, don't _like_ the two-trick penalty for cases where > > it is obvious that the revoke cannot have cost two tricks. I recognize > > that it is law, though, and apply it as necessary. But I do not strain to > > apply it, and I certainly don't see that we should re-write claim law just > > so as to be able to apply the two-trick penalty more often! > > > > As I said, in this case the two-trick penalty only gains one > trick. > I agree that it is not good to give two-trick penalties > where no one trick has been gained by offenders; but > sometimes it is a consequence of the Laws, and we must offer > this minor problem to the altar of "easy directing" (ahem). I agree. But look at what you are now proposing in this case--you are proposing that we defy the ordinary rules of claims and concessions [DWS is even proposing a law change, or the use of L12!], in order to _create_ a two-trick penalty situation that didn't previously exist! I hold that this is: a) Unnecessary, since claim/concession and revoke laws are quite adequate in this situation. b) Unwarranted, since it would conflict with The Scope of the Laws. c) Unfitting for the altar of easy directing! :) > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 05:44:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA10522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 05:44:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from hal-pc.org (hal-pc.org [204.52.135.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA10517 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 05:44:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from ramrod.hal-pc.org (206.180.129.11.dial-ip.hal-pc.org [206.180.129.11]) by hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id OAA26432 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 14:44:13 -0459 (CDT) Message-ID: <37597E91.1634@hal-pc.org> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 14:46:25 -0500 From: Georgiana Gates X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Out of town References: <3.0.32.19990423093624.009bcc40@acsys.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I will be out of town until June 19. Can you please put me on hold? Thanks. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 06:56:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA10601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 06:56:28 +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 GAA10596 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 06:56:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-253-46.s46.tnt8.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.253.46]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25047 for ; Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:56:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00b001beaf95$b08d7100$2efd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199906051835.NAA09110@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:54:57 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Bridgelaws Sent: Saturday, June 05, 1999 2:35 PM Subject: Re: Concession after revoke [snip] > I agree that it is 'not so bad'. I just don't see any reason why > we _need_ to do it. > Let's take it in a series of very simple steps. We don't even need to use the term revoke. Please tell me which of the following is untrue: 1) Declarer can concede a trick to W. He will then receive one subsequent trick. (Doesn't really matter why, in this case it is due to the revoke penalty). 2) Declarer can concede a trick to E. He will then receive two subsequent tricks. (Again, it doesn't matter why) 3) E committed an infraction (the revoke) 4) The infraction made it impossible for declarer to visualize a spade winner in the E hand (after all, he did show out). Accordingly, with both remaining winners marked in the W hand, concession to W was a natural and normal play. 5) S lost a potential trick by conceding to W. If the above is correct, we have all the elements needed to adjust the score: 1) There was an infraction. 2) There was damage. 3) The infraction was the direct cause of the damage. 4) There was no irrational play that might have broken the link between the infraction and the damage. Under these conditions, how can we not adjust? > > However, even if equity is only 0 tricks to declarer, and > > the one-trick penalty is already a bonus, this is then one > > of those rare cases where the revoke actually costs two > > tricks. Not so bad either IMO. > [snip] > > I agree completely. But claim/concession law clearly suggests > that we are to resolve any doubts in favor of the non-claiming side. L71, > for example, makes it clear that one cannot take back a concession unless > there was no legal [A] or normal [C] play that would give declarer more > tricks. > Declarer conceded both tricks to West. There is a normal and > legal play of the cards that gives both tricks to West. L71 forbids > declarer from demanding an extra revoke trick by giving a trick to east. > > > What is the problem of then taking the worst case to > > offenders (= revokers) when there are several possible lines > > after the claim ? > > Because claim law tells us how to resolve a claim, and clearly > suggests doubtful points are to be resolved against claimer. Concession > law clearly says one may not take back a concession under the > circumstances given in this case. > You're chasing a red herring here. The bad concession was a direct result of the infraction. We are *not* trying to retract the concession. We are trying to restore damage directly caused by the bad picture of the hand resulting from the revoke. There's a difference. [snip] > > I agree. But look at what you are now proposing in this case--you > are proposing that we defy the ordinary rules of claims and concessions > [DWS is even proposing a law change, or the use of L12!], in order to > _create_ a two-trick penalty situation that didn't previously exist! I > hold that this is: > a) Unnecessary, since claim/concession and revoke laws are quite > adequate in this situation. Those Laws do not say what to do when the concession is a direct result of an infraction by the opponents (unless "equity" is lost, but I'll stay away from that for now). That strikes me as a pretty big hole, actually. That's what L12 is for, I believe. > b) Unwarranted, since it would conflict with The Scope of the > Laws. Nope. > > Herman DE WAEL > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 10:47:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:47:37 +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 KAA11998 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:47:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from p02s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.3] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10qR5p-0006Vu-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 01:47:18 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 01:52:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01beafb6$d28e4380$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: Ed Reppert To: Anne Jones Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, June 05, 1999 2:40 PM Subject: Re: establishment >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >>Anne Jones wrote: >> >>David Stevenson wrote: >>>>No No No. Read Law 62 thorough. It allows for this situation. When cards >>>>have been played, they may be withdrawn. It is anticipated that this may >>>>happen. >>> >>> L62 refers to cards played after the revoke and before attention is >>>drawn to it, which is not the current situation: it is a card played >>>after attention is drawn that is the problem. >> >>As I understand it, L62 refers to cards played to tricks and which >>are affected by the subsequent correction of an unestablished >>revoke, which is what we have here. > >It seems to me that Law 62C refers to the revoke trick, not to subsequent >tricks. > >>Revoker has realised, and attention has been drawn, before his >>partner has played. So revoke is not established and must be corrected. >>The cards played subsequent to the drawing of attention to the revoke >>do not, I am sure, establish the revoke.[L62 would say so, and it does not] > >Law 62 doesn't say when a revoke is established; Law 63 does. Law 63A1 says >that _any_ play by the offending side to a subsequent trick, legal or >illegal, establishes the revoke. West made an illegal play; the revoke is >established. Some have argued that paradoxes are not allowed, therefor >West's facing of his card after East calls attention to his revoke is "not >a play." I don't buy that, it seems specious to me. The action was not >inadvertant; West obviously _intended_ to play a spade on South's lead of >the King. Therefor, the action _is_ a play, as it conforms to both the >definition of "play" in Chapter One of the Laws, and to Law 45A. > >>The TD should have been called immediately, but as David says, inertia >>may be the cause of the play. However L62 does not put on the TD the >>onus of a decision. Play subsequent to the announcement is cancelled. > >West's illegal play may be withdrawn [Law 47B]; that doesn't affect the >establishment of the revoke. > >>The revoke must be corrected. > >No. In April this year Jeremy Dhondy wrote in "English Bridge", an authorotative magazine for members of the EBU, as part of an article on revokes, and he does stress the need to call the TD. "What happens when there is a revoke? What establishes a revoke? When either member of the offending side plays or leads to the next trick (a claim or concession also establishes a revoke). If a player becomes aware of the revoke before this point it MUST be corrected" I cannot imagine that anyone writing for the EBU on Laws does not at least lurk on this list. Are you out there Mr Dhondy. Your comments on the case in hand would be appreciated. You are my only support in a wilderness.:-) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 18:34:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA12693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 18:34:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net ([194.152.65.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA12688 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 18:34:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem75.fred.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.203] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10qYNj-0007EQ-00; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 09:34:16 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Cc: "Jesper Dybdal" , "David W Stevenson" Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 09:16:52 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "How use doth breed a habit in a man" (T.G.of V.) -ooOoo- > From: Jesper Dybdal > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA > Date: 05 June 1999 14:38 > > On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 02:57:45 -0500, Sandy Singer > wrote: > > >Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for > >this group: > > > >North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads > >the ace; dummy comes > >down. All players see dummy as, > > > >K10xx Kxxx x AKQx > > > >West switches to a heart,. ---------------------- \x/ --------------------------- > >>> Following a detailed analysis of the Director's inadequacies Jesper wrote: > Somebody should teach the director that > (a) There are laws about this: adjust to 11 tricks; > (b) Players are not under any circumstances allowed to agree a result > which is not the one obtained. Nobody but the director or AC can > adjust a score. For a director to try to negotiate an artificial and > unlawful result with the players is ridiculous. > > There is no "unusual dilemma" here - just a simple book ruling. > -- ++ The 'unusual dilemma' is all in the Director's mind. His problem is that he does not have an orderly approach to his rulings. It would seem as though he has never had any basic training in the role of the Director, perhaps does not have easy access to training. [DWS - how about seminars on your web site, and beginning with the raw elementary stuff? A lot of clubs everywhere could usefully download suitable guidance.] Laws 84 and 85 are insufficient in themselves to cure this Director's ills but he should be encouraged to study them. Meanwhile, he might think through his general procedure for making rulings, beginning perhaps with three questions to settle first: (1) Is the request for a ruling in time? (2) Has there been a violation of law and if so what and by whom? (3) Are there other violations?...................Such an orderly process in this case would perhaps have led to the realization that the only breach of the laws was a breach of 41D. He might then have concluded that his route was through 84E ["even a reasonable possibility that the non-offending side was damaged"], adjusting the score to one down and notifying the offending side of their right to appeal his decision, or if he had doubts about his action referring it himself to appeal (which I understand he was sensible enough to do as it was?). Whilst I agree with Jesper that the Director's line was ridiculous, considered objectively, I am inclined to think it demonstrates lack of training in the job and maybe the Director is not the one to blame for that. Perhaps the internet now gives us a means to provide guidance for any who do not come by it easily through 'the normal channels'. Some care is needed over those matters handled differently up to now from region to region. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 6 19:32:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA12758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 19:32:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from m2.boston.juno.com (m2.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.199]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA12752 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 19:32:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (from kardwizard@juno.com) by m2.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id ECEXNKYF; Sun, 06 Jun 1999 05:31:18 EDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 04:35:16 -0500 Subject: NOW--THE REST OF THE STORY Message-ID: <19990606.043517.6262.0.KardWizard@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20-22,24,26,28,30,32,34-37 From: Sandy Singer Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk UNUSUAL DILEMMA Dummy committed a minor technical violation of Law 41 ("After the opening lead, dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up and grouped in suits, . . "). No penalty is provided by law, but (Law 12) : "The Director may assign an adjusted score . . . when these Laws provide no indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law or propriety committed by an opponent." Thus, the director should have adjusted the score (probably to down one) if he believed that the defenders were damaged by dummy's unpenalized infraction (obviously they were), and also that the defenders were "non-offending"--i. e., their failure to notice the misassortment of the dummy was not gross carelessness (had dummy only 12 cards, or had the diamond been in plain sight among the spades, we would find the defenders at fault for not noticing; but we would find no fault as you describe the facts). The director was wrong to suggest that declarer concede down one, wrong to call the failure to concede "unethical and improper." Declarer made his contract; for him to concede a false result would be a gross illegality. For a director to suggest an illegality is shocking, and it was ludicrous to criticize declarer for scoring the board correctly. It is not declarer's job to protect his opponents from damage. The Proprieties establish this specifically: "The responsibility for penalizing irregularities and redressing damage rests solely upon the Director and these Laws, not upon the players themselves." ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 00:03:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:03:22 +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 AAA13338 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:03:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-107-148.uunet.be [194.7.107.148]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA22500 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 16:03:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375A6F65.618A5E1D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 14:53:57 +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: Concession after revoke References: <199906051835.NAA09110@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > > > As I said, in this case the two-trick penalty only gains one > > trick. > > I agree that it is not good to give two-trick penalties > > where no one trick has been gained by offenders; but > > sometimes it is a consequence of the Laws, and we must offer > > this minor problem to the altar of "easy directing" (ahem). > > I agree. But look at what you are now proposing in this case--you > are proposing that we defy the ordinary rules of claims and concessions > [DWS is even proposing a law change, or the use of L12!], in order to > _create_ a two-trick penalty situation that didn't previously exist! I > hold that this is: > a) Unnecessary, since claim/concession and revoke laws are quite > adequate in this situation. Then why are we having this discussion > b) Unwarranted, since it would conflict with The Scope of the > Laws. I don't believe so. > c) Unfitting for the altar of easy directing! :) > Well, the easy directing falls short here, doesn't it ? Just tell me what the penalty is, one trick or two, when the Law refers to cards taking tricks and there is legally no play ? David isn't proposing a Law change, he simply wants to make the Law complete. This thing isn't covered, that's all there is to it ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 00:03:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA13351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:03:26 +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 AAA13341 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 00:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-107-148.uunet.be [194.7.107.148]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA22504 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 16:03:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375A71FC.5AC9C611@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 15:05:00 +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: Concession after revoke References: <199906051835.NAA09110@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001beaf95$b08d7100$2efd7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > Let's take it in a series of very simple steps. We don't even need to use > the term revoke. Please tell me which of the following is untrue: > > 1) Declarer can concede a trick to W. He will then receive one subsequent > trick. (Doesn't really matter why, in this case it is due to the revoke > penalty). > 2) Declarer can concede a trick to E. He will then receive two subsequent > tricks. (Again, it doesn't matter why) > 3) E committed an infraction (the revoke) > 4) The infraction made it impossible for declarer to visualize a spade > winner in the E hand (after all, he did show out). Accordingly, with both > remaining winners marked in the W hand, concession to W was a natural and > normal play. > 5) S lost a potential trick by conceding to W. > > If the above is correct, we have all the elements needed to adjust the > score: > > 1) There was an infraction. > 2) There was damage. > 3) The infraction was the direct cause of the damage. > 4) There was no irrational play that might have broken the link between the > infraction and the damage. > > Under these conditions, how can we not adjust? > Of course we adjust. But there is no adjustment simply on the basis of what you state. That would be a L64C adjustment. Now suppose equity is served without penalties. L64C does not give anything. Yet, there was a revoke (sorry, but I simply must use the word), and it has not been punished. I'm not saying every revoke should automatically gain opponents one or more tricks, but if this case is not resolved using a revoke penalty, we are in fact saying to players never to claim, because they might lose out on a possible revoke penalty. So we must award some revoke penalty as well. Still with me ? The hypothetical case is now that there was no loss of equity, yet there was an established revoke, and there were tricks to offenders. So there is at least a one trick penalty. You are stating that declarer manifestly conceded two tricks to east, while it was west who had revoked. OK let's make it (hypothetically) more difficult : Declarer simply concedes without stating which of his two losers he will play. One will give two tricks to west, the other to east. Or even more difficult : suppose it is west who, after gaining the lead (with three cards to go), has two possibilities : making the final tricks himself, or passing them to partner. Nothing tells us which line will be played. Claim laws tell us that of all possible "lines", claimer gets the worst. Claim laws do not tell us which of all equal lines are to be played. (and why the hell should they ?) Yet we need a "line" to determine if there is a one- or a two-trick penalty. This is not in the Laws. Sorry about that. (And of course it would be silly to stick to claimer the worst line, after determination of revoke penalties. That would be ruling in favour of offenders.) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 01:05:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA15736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:05:23 +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 BAA15731 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:05:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip111.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.111]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990606150445.BFKT12427.fep1@ip111.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 17:04:45 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 17:04:45 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <376d8d82.9296727@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 BAA15732 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 6 Jun 1999 09:16:52 +0100, "Grattan" wrote: >++ The 'unusual dilemma' is all in the Director's mind. His >problem is that he does not have an orderly approach to his >rulings. It would seem as though he has never had any basic >training in the role of the Director, perhaps does not have >easy access to training. [DWS - how about seminars on your >web site, and beginning with the raw elementary stuff? A lot >of clubs everywhere could usefully download suitable guidance.] If David (or somebody else) would put suitable material on a web page, I would certainly try to promote that web page in Denmark. > Whilst I agree with Jesper that the Director's line was >ridiculous, considered objectively, I am inclined to think it >demonstrates lack of training in the job and maybe the >Director is not the one to blame for that. On further reflection, I realize that the words I used about the TD were rather hard. The events we discuss on BLML are often those where you would expect to find good and experienced TDs, and I - probably erroneously - considered the case in that context. I am afraid that this ruling could be duplicated by quite a few Danish TDs. It does not worry me much that a club director cannot find the right place in the book for a specific irregularity, particularly one that requires L84E. But as Grattan says, it is important to educate TDs about the basics, such as L84 and L85. I fear that we have many directors in Denmark who have concentrated so much on learning the rules about revokes and leads out of turn that they have never really noticed L81-85. >Perhaps the >internet now gives us a means to provide guidance for any >who do not come by it easily through 'the normal channels'. I would hope so. Particularly when "the normal channels" are not nearly as good as the ones I understand you have in England. We have a short introductory TD course (which I know very little about) and we have a weekend course for club TDs (good, as I remember it from many years ago). And we have lots of TDs who took the weekend course many years ago and who have probably forgotten the basics. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 03:53:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 03:53:51 +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 DAA16585 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 03:53:43 +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 KAA21948 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <032201beb044$e1c80780$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906051653.MAA28491@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:45:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > Although dummy "could have known" (L72B1) that the hidden diamond "would > > be likely to damage the non-offending side," the usual understanding (as > > in L64B3) is that "everyone is responsible for the dummy." > > I could see this applying to a 12-card dummy; all four players are at > fault if a hand is played with such a dummy. > > However, dummy's cards are not normally spread so that it is possible to > check that all the hearts are actually hearts, and it is not normal for > a defender who sees K754 of hearts in dummy with only the number of the > H7 visible to move the H5 in order to confirm that the H7 is really the > D7. > So, if dummy revokes because of a partially hidden card, with no penalty per the Laws, then L72B1 or L84E can be invoked? I have never heard of that before. I suppose L64C could be applied, but I didn't think it was aimed at revokes by dummy. Let's see if I have this straight: If dummy revokes for whatever reason, no penalty, but the TD determines if the opponents were injured and provides redress for any damage. Is that correct? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 04:53:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 04:53:51 +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 EAA16719 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 04:53:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id NAA06013 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 13:54:27 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906061854.NAA06013@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 13:54:27 -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 > Let's take it in a series of very simple steps. We don't even need to use > the term revoke. Please tell me which of the following is untrue: > > 1) Declarer can concede a trick to W. He will then receive one subsequent > trick. (Doesn't really matter why, in this case it is due to the revoke > penalty). > 2) Declarer can concede a trick to E. He will then receive two subsequent > tricks. (Again, it doesn't matter why) I think the parenthitical comments in both 1 and 2 are untrue. > 3) E committed an infraction (the revoke) > 4) The infraction made it impossible for declarer to visualize a spade > winner in the E hand (after all, he did show out). Accordingly, with both > remaining winners marked in the W hand, concession to W was a natural and > normal play. > 5) S lost a potential trick by conceding to W. > > If the above is correct, we have all the elements needed to adjust the > score: > > 1) There was an infraction. > 2) There was damage. There is no damage. > 3) The infraction was the direct cause of the damage. > 4) There was no irrational play that might have broken the link between the > infraction and the damage. > > Under these conditions, how can we not adjust? 1) Because not getting a bonus penalty trick is not 'damage'. It most certainly _does_ matter 'why' there is a difference in tricks between letting East win and letting west win. 2) Under your definition, it wouldn't make any difference whether declarer claimed/conceded or not! Suppose declarer had played out the hand, and chosen to lead a club to West. Can he now claim 'had I known, I would have led a spade to East. I didn't know because of the revoke. Ergo I have been damaged, and am due a trick back'? Do you, in fact, think that declarer is always entitled to a two-trick penalty whenever there was a play he _could have made_ [but didn't] that yields such a trick? > > > What is the problem of then taking the worst case to > > > offenders (= revokers) when there are several possible lines > > > after the claim ? > > > > Because claim law tells us how to resolve a claim, and clearly > > suggests doubtful points are to be resolved against claimer. Concession > > law clearly says one may not take back a concession under the > > circumstances given in this case. > > > > You're chasing a red herring here. The bad concession was a direct result > of the infraction. We are *not* trying to retract the concession. We are > trying to restore damage directly caused by the bad picture of the hand > resulting from the revoke. There's a difference. Well, we agree on one thing anyway--we cannot retract this concession. :) Okay, so I'll ask again. Suppose there had been no concession, but declarer had in fact played his club to let West win the last two tricks. Do we give declarer two tricks anyway? On the basis of L64C? > > I agree. But look at what you are now proposing in this case--you > > are proposing that we defy the ordinary rules of claims and concessions > > [DWS is even proposing a law change, or the use of L12!], in order to > > _create_ a two-trick penalty situation that didn't previously exist! I > > hold that this is: > > a) Unnecessary, since claim/concession and revoke laws are quite > > adequate in this situation. > > Those Laws do not say what to do when the concession is a direct result of > an infraction by the opponents (unless "equity" is lost, but I'll stay away > from that for now). That strikes me as a pretty big hole, actually. That's > what L12 is for, I believe. I see no reason why they should have to say anything whatsoever about _why_ declarer is claiming or conceding. I, frankly, don't see the problem. Declarer played the cards [or indicated that he would play the cards] in a certain way. Had he played them in a different way, he would have been granted a bonus trick by L64. He didn't, so he doesn't get it. This happens all the time. I have had many occasions where I could have triggered a two-trick penalty by playing the cards differently, but I didn't. It never occurred to me that I might have grounds for a director's call just because of that. > > b) Unwarranted, since it would conflict with The Scope of the > > Laws. > > Nope. The 'Scope' says that the laws are primarily designed to redress damage, not punish irregularities. We all agree that declarer gets as many tricks with the one-trick revoke penalty as he would have had if there had been no revoke. Hence, there is no damage. If we give a two-trick penalty, we are merely punishing the revoke. If L64 _requires_ that we do this, I can accept that, since the Easy Directing Gods will be appeased. But if punishing the revoke is more complicated than redressing damage, I can see no justification for it. > Hirsch > -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 05:15:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA16763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:15:27 +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 FAA16758 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 05:15:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id OAA06922 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 14:16:07 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906061916.OAA06922@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 14:16:07 -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 > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > 1) There was an infraction. > > 2) There was damage. > > 3) The infraction was the direct cause of the damage. > > 4) There was no irrational play that might have broken the link between the > > infraction and the damage. > > > > Under these conditions, how can we not adjust? > > > > Of course we adjust. > > But there is no adjustment simply on the basis of what you > state. > That would be a L64C adjustment. > Now suppose equity is served without penalties. > L64C does not give anything. > Yet, there was a revoke (sorry, but I simply must use the > word), and it has not been punished. At this point, Herman and I are in complete agreement. :) > I'm not saying every revoke should automatically gain > opponents one or more tricks, but if this case is not > resolved using a revoke penalty, we are in fact saying to > players never to claim, because they might lose out on a > possible revoke penalty. This is the strongest argument for giving the two-trick penalty. But I cannot accept it: 1) People do sometimes lose tricks by claiming. Last week I claimed, and realized later that had I played out the cards I could have created a squeeze that could have netted me an extra trick. I didn't see it at the time, so I gave opponents a trick at the end they might not have gotten. Too bad--claim/concession law tells us [quite rightly] that I am not entitled to a trick for this reason. I want to encourage claims, but I must admit that sometimes you get more tricks by not claiming. [OTOH, sometimes you screw something up by playing out the hand, and you would have been better off claiming.] 2) The problem only arises when you claim _without making a statement of how you will play the hand out_. Had declarer in our case said "I'll lead my losing spade now and give West the last two tricks" I certainly would have awarded him the two-trick penalty. [And we agree, I assume, that had he said "I'll lead my losing club now and give West the last two tricks", we would both award the one-trick penalty just as we would if he had played out the hand and lost the two tricks to West. I'm not sure Hirsch agrees we me, but I _think_ you do....] So what it comes down to is this--you wish to reward a player who made an incomplete concession statement with an extra bonus trick which is in no way a part of equity. So you will create a situation where a player who claims poorly in violation of L68C always gets the benefit of the doubt in the awarding of free revoke tricks, while the player who claims properly gets them only some of the time. In order to secure this benefit for bad claimers, we will invoke L12? > So we must award some revoke penalty as well. > > Still with me ? > > The hypothetical case is now that there was no loss of > equity, yet there was an established revoke, and there were > tricks to offenders. So there is at least a one trick > penalty. Agreed. > You are stating that declarer manifestly conceded two tricks > to east, while it was west who had revoked. I can't remember now--I thought it was the other way around. Doesn't matter. > OK let's make it (hypothetically) more difficult : > Declarer simply concedes without stating which of his two > losers he will play. One will give two tricks to west, the > other to east. L71 tells us his concession of both tricks stands, except for the exceptions under 'A' and 'C'. In this case, I reward declarer's violation of L68C by giving both tricks to the non-revoker. > Or even more difficult : suppose it is west who, after > gaining the lead (with three cards to go), has two > possibilities : making the final tricks himself, or passing > them to partner. If you mean that at this point West claims without stating a line of play, I award one of the tricks to the revoker. > Nothing tells us which line will be played. > Claim laws tell us that of all possible "lines", claimer > gets the worst. > Claim laws do not tell us which of all equal lines are to be > played. > (and why the hell should they ?) > Yet we need a "line" to determine if there is a one- or a > two-trick penalty. So the one-trick line is the 'worst' for the declarer, and the two-trick line is the 'worst' for the defenders. WTP? > This is not in the Laws. Sorry about that. It is not explicitly in the laws, but it looks like a fairly easy extrapolation to me. > (And of course it would be silly to stick to claimer the > worst line, after determination of revoke penalties. That > would be ruling in favour of offenders.) Claimer is also an offender, if he did not "[clarify] the order in which the cards will be played". I resolve the claim in favor of the non-offending side [the non-claimers], and _then_ resolve the revoke in favor of the non-offending side [the non-revokers]. In this case, that result produces [drum roll] Equity! We should be celebrating--opposing infractions yielded equity. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 08:11:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:11:52 +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 IAA17048 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:11:42 +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 SAA23251 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 18:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA23863 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 18:11:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 18:11:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906062211.SAA23863@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > I am afraid that this ruling could be duplicated by quite a few Danish > TDs. I fear it would be nearly universal in North America, at least the "no adjustment" part. Optimist that I am, I hope the "Why don't you concede?" part would be rarer. > But as Grattan says, it is important to educate TDs about the basics, > such as L84 and L85. Or even "First thing, open up the FLB...." And then follow Grattan's logical sequence of questions. I am reminded of new training practices in an unrelated field. The first thing taught is a logical sequence for solving problems. Then each specific example problem is treated within the steps of the logical sequence. The hope is the student will apply the same logic to a new problem, even if that specific problem has not appeared during training. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 08:29:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:29:59 +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 IAA17083 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:29:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net ([192.116.192.115]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA10015 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:29:17 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <375AF693.2E90A639@internet-zahav.net> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 01:30:43 +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 - May 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 9th 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 8 years old 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 Mon Jun 7 08:55:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:55:07 +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 IAA17131 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:54:57 +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 10qloQ-0007hW-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:54:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:13:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Advice from on high. References: <199906042042.QAA18426@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <199906042042.QAA18426@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <77vPPIA4GFW3EwBz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.5.32.19990604234841.00874e70@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990604234841.00874e70@maine.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim Goodwin wrote: >At 11:22 PM 6/4/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>>> Read L40B. If oppos are likely to understand the meaning then it is >>>> legal: well, oppos expect and understand false-cards: oppos do not >>>> expect psyches, so they are treated differently. >>>> >>>I understand that this could come out snide. But I don't mean >>>it that way. Honest question. >>> >>>Does this mean you can't false card against novices? >> >> No, I do not think so. I think that it is reasonable to treat general >>bridge knowledge as existing even if your current oppos are too >>inexperienced to know it. > >Does this mean you believe falsecards are general birdge knowledge while >psyches are not? I believe the fact that falsecards are common and to be expected from an unknown pair is general bridge knowledge, and I do not believe the same can be said of 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 Mon Jun 7 08:54:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:54:59 +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 IAA17123 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:54:51 +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 10qloN-0007bu-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:54:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:26:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA References: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> In-Reply-To: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sandy Singer wrote: >Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for >this group: > >North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads >the ace; dummy comes >down. All players see dummy as, > >K10xx Kxxx x AKQx > >West switches to a heart, and South makes six spades. Later, East-West's >teammates cannot >understand the result, since there are two diamond losers and the opening >leader has ace-king. >East-West disagree, saying that there was only one diamond in dummy. Not >so, say their >teammates. The other team is consulted and it turns out that there were >two diamonds in North's >hand, but he had, obviously (and, it is assumed, innocently) had the >other diamond with the >king-third in hearts. > >The tournament director asks when South noticed that there were two >diamonds in dummy. >South said at the fifth trick (by which time six spades had been made). >The director suggested that >North-South concede six spades one down, since it was dummy's fault for >having mixed a >diamond with a heart. This is totally disgraceful action by the Tournament Director, in contravention of the Laws. See L10A and L72A5. If the TD cannot be bothered to do his job then attempting to bully players into doing his job for him is awful. >South does not agree, claims six spades made. Too **** right. As he should! > The director lets the score >stand since he says he >cannot find any rule against it, but says he will bring the case to a >higher committee for a ruling. Incompetence by the Director is, I suppose, a reason to take it to appeal. >Although he could not adjust the score to six spades one down, he found >South's action in not >conceding one down unethical and improper, a violation of the Proprieties >of the Duplicate Laws, >especially of this sentence in The Scope of the Law: "The Laws are not >designed to prevent >dishonorable practices, but rather to redress damage inadvertently done." That is for the Director to apply, not for him to bully the players. >Do you think the >director's actions correct? I believe that the Director has little feel for the good of the game and should not be allowed to practice as a Director again until he realises that he is meant to look after the players, and make decisions as to fact and Law. If he cannot find a Law to cover a case then he still has to rule and has no right to abrogate his responsibilities. For him to apply pressure to players to try to get a ruling against the Laws [as he sees them] is beyond belief. >Will have the 'ruling' for you tomorrow. If the ruling is that 6S should now be one off based on the Scope then I believe the player should take the matter to court. Suppose in American football the referee rules that it was a touchdown really, but he asks the team not to accept it - what do you think would have happened? And if the NFL afterwards tell the team not to accept it [thus losing a Superbowl] because they were asked nicely you would see the biggest lawsuit in the history of sport. -- 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 Jun 7 08:55:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA17136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:55:03 +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 IAA17129 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:54:56 +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 10qloU-0007hl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:54:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 12:08:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990603082102.006f0ac8@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990604103910.00692574@pop.cais.com> <025301beaf1d$c0d13100$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <025301beaf1d$c0d13100$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Just don't look to see if opponents are playing penalty doubles, and your >conscience will be clear. Or, if you know anyway, follow your conscience. >No TD or AC will penalize you for "sins of omission" that involve >avoidance of system calls that seem dangerous, for it is only "sins of >commission" that are subject to scrutiny and possible penalties. What do you mean "your conscience will be clear"? Taking a particular path specifically to avoid the effects of a regulation is illegal. Whether or not a TD or AC can decide that, certainly the player's conscience should. One of the main reason for promulgating the "rules" of bridge is because of the honest people who will follow the "rules" if they know then. -- 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 Jun 7 10:07:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA17282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:07:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from server01.gw.total-web.net (root@server01.gw.total-web.net [209.186.12.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA17274 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 10:07:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from Bill (ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net [209.186.14.202]) by server01.gw.total-web.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id UAA08542; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 20:10:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005401beb079$6b5c6020$ca0ebad1@Bill.gw.total-web.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 20:05:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0051_01BEB057.E3614A80" 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_0051_01BEB057.E3614A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Sandy Singer wrote: >>Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for >>this group: >> >>North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads >>the ace; dummy comes >>down. All players see dummy as, >> >>K10xx Kxxx x AKQx >> >>West switches to a heart, (SNIP) > > If the ruling is that 6S should now be one off based on the Scope then >I believe the player should take the matter to court. Suppose in >American football the referee rules that it was a touchdown really, but >he asks the team not to accept it - what do you think would have >happened? And if the NFL afterwards tell the team not to accept it >[thus losing a Superbowl] because they were asked nicely you would see >the biggest lawsuit in the history of sport. > > I think your analogies are flawed. In bridge, we have several instances where AC's take into consideration whether a player _could_ have known that his side could/would benefit. Should not this situation evaluated in that light? We are not given the auction, but if we assume that the auction suggested dummy would have diamond shortage, all the elements seem to be present????? Bill Bickford >-- >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 ~ > ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01BEB057.E3614A80 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; name="Bill Bickford.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Bill Bickford.vcf" BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Bickford;Bill FN:Bill Bickford EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:bill.bickford@vistaeyecare.com REV:19990607T000513Z END:VCARD ------=_NextPart_000_0051_01BEB057.E3614A80-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 11:14:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:23 +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 LAA17466 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:15 +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 10qnzG-000HHq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:14:04 +0000 Message-ID: <7fsP2oA1OxW3EwDf@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:35:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199906051835.NAA09110@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906051835.NAA09110@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk GrantS wrote: > I agree. But look at what you are now proposing in this case--you >are proposing that we defy the ordinary rules of claims and concessions >[DWS is even proposing a law change, or the use of L12!], in order to >_create_ a two-trick penalty situation that didn't previously exist! I >hold that this is: > a) Unnecessary, since claim/concession and revoke laws are quite >adequate in this situation. > b) Unwarranted, since it would conflict with The Scope of the >Laws. > c) Unfitting for the altar of easy directing! :) Why are you only prepared to look at one side? Please, compare the two. Side A committed no infraction and did nothing wrong. Side B committed an infraction, namely they revoked. You are giving the benefit of the doubt to Side B. Are sure you are happy with 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 Mon Jun 7 11:14:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:37 +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 LAA17472 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:22 +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 10qnzL-000HHq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:14:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:02:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA References: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> <02a101beaf70$64f61780$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <02a101beaf70$64f61780$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Although dummy "could have known" (L72B1) that the hidden diamond "would >be likely to damage the non-offending side," the usual understanding (as >in L64B3) is that "everyone is responsible for the dummy." This is wrong. Nowhere in the Laws is there anything that suggests everyone is responsible for dummy: it is an old wives' tale [with apologies to any old wives out there!]. L64B3 says there is no automatic penalty for a revoke from dummy. So? L41D describes the correct procedure for putting down the dummy. There is no suggestion that the oppos are responsible in any way for this procedure. ----------- David Grabiner wrote: >Marvin L. French writes: > >> Although dummy "could have known" (L72B1) that the hidden diamond "would >> be likely to damage the non-offending side," the usual understanding (as >> in L64B3) is that "everyone is responsible for the dummy." > >I could see this applying to a 12-card dummy; all four players are at >fault if a hand is played with such a dummy. Why? Under which Law? ----------- Marvin L. French wrote: >So, if dummy revokes because of a partially hidden card, with no penalty >per the Laws, then L72B1 or L84E can be invoked? I have never heard of >that before. It has been mentioned before on BLML. If a player cannot be bothered to put the dummy down correctly why should his oppos suffer: he is the infractor [is that a word?]. > I suppose L64C could be applied, but I didn't think it was >aimed at revokes by dummy. L64C is often applied to dummy's revokes, and the words "including those not subject to penalty" make it clear that this is correct. >Let's see if I have this straight: If dummy revokes for whatever reason, >no penalty, but the TD determines if the opponents were injured and >provides redress for any damage. Is that correct? Absolutely. -- 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 Jun 7 11:14:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:39 +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 LAA17475 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:23 +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 10qnzL-000GGR-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:14:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:43:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199906061854.NAA06013@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906061854.NAA06013@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk GrantS wrote: > Well, we agree on one thing anyway--we cannot retract this >concession. :) > Okay, so I'll ask again. Suppose there had been no concession, >but declarer had in fact played his club to let West win the last two >tricks. Do we give declarer two tricks anyway? On the basis of L64C? No, but at least if he played it out he had a 50/50 chance of two tricks. You are giving him a zero chance of two tricks. [s] > I see no reason why they should have to say anything whatsoever >about _why_ declarer is claiming or conceding. I, frankly, don't see the >problem. Declarer played the cards [or indicated that he would play the >cards] in a certain way. Oh no he did not! He said he was conceding two tricks to West, but he did not say which card he was playing. In effect he was in a position where he would have had a 50/50 chance of two tricks, but since you wish to give the benefit of any doubt to revoker you are taking his 50% chance away. > Had he played them in a different way, he would >have been granted a bonus trick by L64. He didn't, so he doesn't get it. >This happens all the time. I have had many occasions where I could have >triggered a two-trick penalty by playing the cards differently, but I >didn't. It never occurred to me that I might have grounds for a >director's call just because of that. It is not the same. He had a 50/50 shot: you took it away. -- 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 Jun 7 11:14:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:35 +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 LAA17474 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:23 +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 10qnzL-00046L-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:14:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:01:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199906061916.OAA06922@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906061916.OAA06922@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk grantS wrote: > So what it comes down to is this--you wish to reward a player who >made an incomplete concession statement with an extra bonus trick which is >in no way a part of equity. So you will create a situation where a player >who claims poorly in violation of L68C always gets the benefit of the >doubt in the awarding of free revoke tricks, while the player who claims >properly gets them only some of the time. In order to secure this benefit >for bad claimers, we will invoke L12? You wish to reward a revoker because his opponent makes a claim/concession which would always be completely perfect except for the revoke. [s] > Claimer is also an offender, if he did not "[clarify] the order in >which the cards will be played". This is complete rubbish, and shows a lack of tolerance for the bridge player that is unacceptable. He made a statement that you know very well was a complete statement except in the case of an opponent's revoking. That is not an infraction. -- 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 Jun 7 11:14:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:34 +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 LAA17473 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:14:22 +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 10qnzM-000HHp-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:14:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:04:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >++ The 'unusual dilemma' is all in the Director's mind. His >problem is that he does not have an orderly approach to his >rulings. It would seem as though he has never had any basic >training in the role of the Director, perhaps does not have >easy access to training. [DWS - how about seminars on your >web site, and beginning with the raw elementary stuff? A lot >of clubs everywhere could usefully download suitable guidance.] Why do I feel as though I am walking in a garden and someone has just offered me an apple? -- 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 Jun 7 11:43:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:43:27 +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 LAA17645 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:43:18 +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 10qoRN-000HgN-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:43:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 02:42:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA References: <005401beb079$6b5c6020$ca0ebad1@Bill.gw.total-web.net> In-Reply-To: <005401beb079$6b5c6020$ca0ebad1@Bill.gw.total-web.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bill Bickford wrote: >I wrote: >> If the ruling is that 6S should now be one off based on the Scope then >>I believe the player should take the matter to court. Suppose in >>American football the referee rules that it was a touchdown really, but >>he asks the team not to accept it - what do you think would have >>happened? And if the NFL afterwards tell the team not to accept it >>[thus losing a Superbowl] because they were asked nicely you would see >>the biggest lawsuit in the history of sport. >I think your analogies are flawed. In bridge, we have several instances >where AC's take into consideration whether a player _could_ have known that >his side could/would benefit. Should not this situation evaluated in that >light? We are not given the auction, but if we assume that the auction >suggested dummy would have diamond shortage, all the elements seem to be >present????? But in these instances the AC takes the decision - not the player. Anyway, like the concession thread, I believe that when a player commits an infraction, it should be he who suffers, not his opponents. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 12:55:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA17828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:55:05 +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 MAA17823 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:54:50 +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; Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:53:16 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37587513.1644604@post.tele.dk> References: <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:44:38 -0400 To: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >If W's card is played, then L62 and L63 conflict. > >(Therefore it is not played) > Bertel, I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense to me. Law 45A: "Each player plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him." West did that. The card _is_ played. To rule that it is not played makes nonsense of Law 45A. Sorry, but I think we have to find some other way to resolve this problem. My suggestion: Law 9B makes West's play illegal, yes. But it's still a play. And Law 63 says "_any_ play, legal or illegal" establishes the revoke. Therefor, the revoke is established, and may not be corrected. West's played card becomes a penalty card (Law 49); South's play of the KS stands (Law 45). Transfer of tricks may occur after play is ended (Law 64). Had proper procedure been followed, there would have been no problem. Once West makes his illegal play, it seems to me Law 63 must take precedence over Law 62. 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/AwUBN1s0Yb2UW3au93vOEQKA7gCfRDf2/PgFmnPPox4OTyG6cHRdXhYAoJ/7 dBeFPs0lGhm5kuxEknjIKj7i =E2PN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 15:37:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA18071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:37:10 +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 PAA18066 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:37:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip47.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.47]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990607053650.FUFE23271.fep4@ip47.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:36:50 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 05:36:51 GMT Message-ID: <37645a47.1177332@post.tele.dk> References: <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:44:38 -0400 skrev Ed Reppert: >I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense to me. Law 45A: "Each player >plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table >immediately before him." Does that hold true, if the auction hasn't even started? If not, then clearly the timing matters, which makes my argument perfectly valid. >Had proper procedure been followed, there would have been no problem. Once >West makes his illegal play, it seems to me Law 63 must take precedence >over Law 62. Seems to you, maybe, but where does the law back you up? Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 18:04:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:04:08 +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 SAA18310 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:03:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem3.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.131] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10quNn-0007o4-00; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:03:48 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:44:45 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "We have written the laws of bridge in English as the most generally spoken language, and our achievement is a status for English as the most widely misunderstood language." Grattan Endicott, speech, June 6 1999. -ooOoo- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA > Date: 07 June 1999 02:04 > > Grattan wrote: > >>. [DWS - how about seminars on your >>web site, and beginning with the raw elementary stuff? A lot >>of clubs everywhere could usefully download suitable guidance.] > > Why do I feel as though I am walking in a garden and someone has just > offered me an apple? > > David Stevenson ++ Innocence asks no question. David, time and again we see evidence of Directors lacking an organized thought process. You have a lot of experience in teaching unpractised Directors and much wisdom to impart. It is one thing to discuss the laws themselves, and useful, but the seed is more productive if planted in prepared ground and I, for one, know you have the capability for the task. We ought to be using the internet to develop technique and a European initiative in this would be no bad thing. ~ Grattan ~ ++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 18:04:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA18321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:04:08 +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 SAA18311 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:03:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem3.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.131] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10quNp-0007o4-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 09:03:50 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: establishment Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:57:43 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "We have written the laws of bridge in English as the most generally spoken language, and our achievement is a status for English as the most widely misunderstood language." Grattan Endicott, speech, June 6 1999. -ooOoo- ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: establishment > Date: 04 June 1999 19:42 > > Kojak wrote: > >wWhen the revoker says "please stop, I have revoked, and I want to corrredt > >it now" is there anyone in this game who thinks that the next hand has the > >right to play an illegal play, thereby establishing the revoke? Am I > >drinking too much, or not enough?(or the wrong stuff?) Does nayone really > >think that when the revoker says, "Hey waat a minute, I've done something > >wrong, thqt they can now exercise some sort of option of establishing the > >revoke? > > No, he has not got the *right* to play another card [L9B2] - but the > question is what happens if he does so anyway. Since it would normally > be detrimental to his side if he established the revoke thereby it is > difficult to believe he would do so deliberately [and L72B1 would apply > if we could actually construct a situation where it was to his benefit]. > > I think the problem comes where one player is saying "Stop!" just as > his partner has taken a card out and plays it through inertia. > > -------- ++++ Coming late to supper I have just picked up the above. Would I be right in assuming that South has led and has retained the lead; West and North have followed suit and East has revoked, South leads to the following trick, East wakes up and announces that he has revoked, and West then plays a card to the second of the tricks? If so, is the law unclear? Will the Director not rule 1. East has discovered the irregularity and drawn attention to it BEFORE the revoke was established, so (Law 62A) he MUST correct it. This is not optional. 2. East's withdrawn card (62B1) becomes a penalty card. 3. South led to the second trick after the revoke and before attention was drawn to it. Law 62C1 allows South to withdraw his led card if he wishes. 4. If South does change his card West may then withdraw his card also but it too becomes a penalty card. If South does not change his lead to the second trick West's card can not be changed since 62C2 only allows this if the non-offending side has exercised its option. ? [N.B. The timing of West's play to the second trick is material in relation to the establishment of the revoke and whether, therefore, 62A applies. It is for the Director to establish the fact of the matter, at least in his opinion, and rule accordingly. Either West played after East's announcement or he did not.The Director is required to rule one way or the other - and if in difficulty must follow Law 85.] But this is so simple that I must have missed something, unless, that is, someone has indulged in a muddled and incorrect idea that a post-discovery play by West establishes the revoke. This is not the case. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 20:35:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:35:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from kn2smtp1.mx.koc.net (kn2smtp1.mx.koc.net [193.243.207.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18540 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:35:26 +1000 (EST) From: ercank@kocsistem.com.tr Received: from kn2ims1.mx.koc.net ([193.243.207.12]) by kn2smtp1.mx.koc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id L5J5R60Y; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:39:28 +0300 Received: by kn2ims1.mx.koc.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:36:35 +0300 Message-ID: <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B422@MESSENGER> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: An urgent decission neede Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:31:50 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id UAA18541 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all , I had the following case : Hands : IMP Pairs, Q9x Q98x K K98xx Axx Txx A10xx KJxx Qxxx JTxx QV Axx KJxx X Axxxx Txx N E S W P P P 1D Dbl 1H 2S Dbl P P P Player (S) asked to east what does "dbl" means , and east said it is "Peanalty Double" T1 : CQ CK CA Cx T2: Cx CT CJ Cx T3: Dx DK Dx Dx T4 : Sx Sx SK SA T5: HA Hx Hx Hx T6: Hx H8 HJ Sx At this point if declarer draw two round of trumps , makes 2S if S breaks 3-3. But becouse of pentlty double , and seeing CA and HK at E hand , played for going one down, since he would go many down if the S suit doesn't break even. (Hint : NS players are experts , while E-W players are intermidiate) S asked for director and said that altough E explained dbl as penalty, W does not have a penalty dbl (neither trump holding nor strength) , and without this info it is easy for him to draw the suit and makes 2S. What is your decision ? Ercan Kuru KoçSistem Bilisim Grubu ercank@kocsistem.com.tr From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 20:38:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from kn2smtp1.mx.koc.net (kn2smtp1.mx.koc.net [193.243.207.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18556 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:38:24 +1000 (EST) From: ercank@kocsistem.com.tr Received: from kn2ims1.mx.koc.net ([193.243.207.12]) by kn2smtp1.mx.koc.net with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id L5J5R7FK; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:42:27 +0300 Received: by kn2ims1.mx.koc.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) id ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:39:33 +0300 Message-ID: <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B423@MESSENGER> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Apeal Time Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:34:48 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id UAA18557 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is there any specific time to apeal after the tournament finished if the organisation does not have any anouncement about this? In another way : Is it possible to ask for apeal after the results of tournament anounced ? Best Regards Ercan Kuru KoçSistem Biliþim Grubu ercank@kocsistem.com.tr From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 21:41:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA18725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:41:20 +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 VAA18719 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:41:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-147-122.uunet.be [194.7.147.122]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA20785 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:41:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375BA6CF.928A2CEF@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 13:02:39 +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: Concession after revoke References: <199906061916.OAA06922@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (that is Grant Sterling) wrote: > > > Yet, there was a revoke (sorry, but I simply must use the > > word), and it has not been punished. > > At this point, Herman and I are in complete agreement. :) > Wow ! ;-) > > I'm not saying every revoke should automatically gain > > opponents one or more tricks, but if this case is not > > resolved using a revoke penalty, we are in fact saying to > > players never to claim, because they might lose out on a > > possible revoke penalty. > > This is the strongest argument for giving the two-trick penalty. Thanks. > But I cannot accept it: No need to, if you can argue against it, let's see : > 1) People do sometimes lose tricks by claiming. Last week I > claimed, and realized later that had I played out the cards I could have > created a squeeze that could have netted me an extra trick. I didn't see > it at the time, so I gave opponents a trick at the end they might not have > gotten. Too bad--claim/concession law tells us [quite rightly] that I am > not entitled to a trick for this reason. I want to encourage claims, but > I must admit that sometimes you get more tricks by not claiming. [OTOH, > sometimes you screw something up by playing out the hand, and you would > have been better off claiming.] This argument is concerned with 'bad' claims. In the case under discussion, there is no evidence whatsoever of a bad claim. Given all the information available to declarer, his claim is rock solid. There is no way whatsoever that he can make another trick. So he simply concedes. And it may well be that he concedes without a definite line. > 2) The problem only arises when you claim _without making a > statement of how you will play the hand out_. Had declarer in our case > said "I'll lead my losing spade now and give West the last two tricks" I > certainly would have awarded him the two-trick penalty. [And we agree, I > assume, that had he said "I'll lead my losing club now and give West the > last two tricks", we would both award the one-trick penalty just as we > would if he had played out the hand and lost the two tricks to West. I'm > not sure Hirsch agrees we me, but I _think_ you do....] > So now you will punish a player for not making a complete statement, when in fact, no statement is necessary for a concession of all tricks? And I have even given an example where the final line does not depend on declarer's play, but rather on defenders' order in which they take the tricks that are conceded to them ! > So what it comes down to is this--you wish to reward a player who > made an incomplete concession statement with an extra bonus trick which is > in no way a part of equity. So you will create a situation where a player > who claims poorly in violation of L68C always gets the benefit of the > doubt in the awarding of free revoke tricks, while the player who claims > properly gets them only some of the time. In order to secure this benefit > for bad claimers, we will invoke L12? > I repeat, no clarification is needed for a concession, only for a claim. L68C applies to "claim", while L68A and L68B clearly make a distinction between a claim and a concession. Do declarer is not in violation of L68C, as you state. Sorry, your argument does not float. > > So we must award some revoke penalty as well. > > > > Still with me ? > > > > The hypothetical case is now that there was no loss of > > equity, yet there was an established revoke, and there were > > tricks to offenders. So there is at least a one trick > > penalty. > > Agreed. > > > You are stating that declarer manifestly conceded two tricks > > to east, while it was west who had revoked. > > I can't remember now--I thought it was the other way around. > Doesn't matter. > Indeed, upon rereading I also noticed it was the other way round, and indeed, it doesn't matter. > > OK let's make it (hypothetically) more difficult : > > Declarer simply concedes without stating which of his two > > losers he will play. One will give two tricks to west, the > > other to east. > > L71 tells us his concession of both tricks stands, except for the > exceptions under 'A' and 'C'. In this case, I reward declarer's violation > of L68C by giving both tricks to the non-revoker. > See above. And we are not talking about concession withdrawn, only about determination of revoke penalty. > > Or even more difficult : suppose it is west who, after > > gaining the lead (with three cards to go), has two > > possibilities : making the final tricks himself, or passing > > them to partner. > > If you mean that at this point West claims without stating a line > of play, I award one of the tricks to the revoker. > No, south has conceded, and he has not given a clarification statement which included the cards west or east are supposed to be playing. So even if you demand a clarification (which you can't), there still remain some problems. > > Nothing tells us which line will be played. > > Claim laws tell us that of all possible "lines", claimer > > gets the worst. > > Claim laws do not tell us which of all equal lines are to be > > played. > > (and why the hell should they ?) > > Yet we need a "line" to determine if there is a one- or a > > two-trick penalty. > > So the one-trick line is the 'worst' for the declarer, and the > two-trick line is the 'worst' for the defenders. WTP? > Claim laws tell us to give the worst line to claimer, but that can only count when claimer has made some 'mistake'. Here it is opponents who have created the 'mistake', so clearly, claimer should not suffer the 'worst' possible result, but rather the 'best' (to him). > > This is not in the Laws. Sorry about that. > > It is not explicitly in the laws, but it looks like a fairly easy > extrapolation to me. > And to me. But exactly the opposite. So it is not as easy as you say, is it ? > > (And of course it would be silly to stick to claimer the > > worst line, after determination of revoke penalties. That > > would be ruling in favour of offenders.) > > Claimer is also an offender, if he did not "[clarify] the order in > which the cards will be played". I resolve the claim in favor of the > non-offending side [the non-claimers], and _then_ resolve the revoke in > favor of the non-offending side [the non-revokers]. In this case, that > result produces [drum roll] Equity! We should be celebrating--opposing > infractions yielded equity. > Well, since claimer is not an offender, your argument is invalid. Sorry. > > Herman DE WAEL > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 7 22:18:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:18:28 +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 WAA18897 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:18:15 +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 10qyLj-0004pp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:17:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:11:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: An urgent decission neede References: <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B422@MESSENGER> In-Reply-To: <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B422@MESSENGER> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ercan wrote: >Hands : IMP pairs Q9x W N E S Q98x K P P P Axx K98xx Txx 1D Dbl 1H 2S A10xx KJxx Dbl AP Qxxx JTxx QJ KJxx Axx Player (S) asked east what "dbl" x means , and east said it is a Axxxx "Penalty Double" Txx T1: W CQ CK CA* Cx T2: E Cx CT CJ* Cx T3: W Dx DK* Dx Dx T4: N Sx Sx SK SA* T5: W HA* Hx Hx Hx T6: W Hx H8 HJ Sx* >At this point if declarer draw two round of trumps , makes 2S if S breaks >3-3. But becouse of pentlty double , and seeing CA and HK at E hand , played >for going one down, since he would go many down if the S suit doesn't break >even. (Hint : NS players are experts , while E-W players are intermidiate) > >S asked for director and said that altough E explained dbl as penalty, W >does not have a penalty dbl (neither trump holding nor strength) , and >without this info it is easy for him to draw the suit and makes 2S. > >What is your decision ? Unfortunately we do not really have full information. What are the E/W agreements? Was this really a penalty double? After all, the hand itself proves nothing: there was a case in England several years ago where a visiting foreign pair doubled a 2C overcall of 1NT for penalties holding a small singleton club. I ruled against them, but they convinced the AC [chaired by Grattan] that they were playing penalty doubles: no infraction, no adjustment. It is not obvious, looking at West's hand, what it is mean to be. He does not have a penalty double [poor spades, hearts too long], a co- operative double [hearts too long, not strong enough], a competitive double [hearts too long], a support double [not three hearts], a negative double [wrong suits] or a takeout double [wrong suits]. Perhaps he mis-sorted his hand! I would expect E/W to tell me what double means and why West bid it. It is not inconceivable that they will convince me it is penalties, though it seems very strange [especially at IMP pairs, rather than matchpoints]. I shall tend to rule against them unless they are fairly convincing, and would normally rule 2S*= because it might be made. It is nowhere near certain to make, so even if I am convinced there was MI, I would like this one to go to appeal, and assuming L12C3 applies, I would decide something like 50% 2S*=, 50% 2S*-1 as an AC. -- 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 Jun 7 22:18:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:18:55 +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 WAA18898 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:18:21 +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 10qyLc-000GF6-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:17:49 +0000 Message-ID: <$FguwPAED7W3EwCW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:45:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment 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 >> No, he has not got the *right* to play another card [L9B2] - but the >> question is what happens if he does so anyway. Since it would normally >> be detrimental to his side if he established the revoke thereby it is >> difficult to believe he would do so deliberately [and L72B1 would apply >> if we could actually construct a situation where it was to his benefit]. >> >> I think the problem comes where one player is saying "Stop!" just as >> his partner has taken a card out and plays it through inertia. >++++ Coming late to supper I have just picked up the above. > Would I be right in assuming that South has led and has retained >the lead; West and North have followed suit and East has >revoked, South leads to the following trick, East wakes up and >announces that he has revoked, and West then plays a card to >the second of the tricks? > If so, is the law unclear? Will the Director not rule >1. East has discovered the irregularity and drawn attention >to it BEFORE the revoke was established, so (Law 62A) he >MUST correct it. This is not optional. >2. East's withdrawn card (62B1) becomes a penalty card. >3. South led to the second trick after the revoke and before >attention was drawn to it. Law 62C1 allows South to >withdraw his led card if he wishes. >4. If South does change his card West may then withdraw >his card also but it too becomes a penalty card. If South >does not change his lead to the second trick West's card >can not be changed since 62C2 only allows this if the >non-offending side has exercised its option. ? [snip irrelevant bit] >But this is so simple that I must have missed something, >unless, that is, someone has indulged in a muddled and >incorrect idea that a post-discovery play by West >establishes the revoke. This is not the case. Very definitely put. But no, the Law is not unclear. It says, quite clearly, LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE A. Revoke Becomes Established A revoke becomes established: 1. Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke). Neither you nor anyone else have put a case that suggests to me we do not follow this [perfectly clear] Law. Ok, you have said "this is not the case" but with nothing to back it up. So far, the arguments over this particular one remind me of Buenos Aires in 1965. Everyone knows the truth: no-one can see each other's side. If anyone is wondering why I am not posting what the answer is it is because [a] I do not know for sure yet and [b] the arguments so far are unconvincing. -- 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 Jun 7 22:20:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:20:59 +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 WAA18904 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:18:27 +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 10qyLm-0004pq-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 12:18:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:14:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Apeal Time References: <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B423@MESSENGER> In-Reply-To: <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B423@MESSENGER> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ercan wrote: >Is there any specific time to apeal after the tournament finished if the >organisation does not have any anouncement about this? L92B says: The right to request or appeal a Director's ruling expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection, unless the sponsoring organisation has specified a different time period. So, the SO says nothing, then the time limit is 30 minutes after the official score was available for inspection. >In another way : > >Is it possible to ask for apeal after the results of tournament anounced ? For 30 minutes, yes: after that, 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 Mon Jun 7 22:30:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA18985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:30:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (lighton@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA18980 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:30:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA17818 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 08:30:38 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u3.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Ed Reppert wrote: > I've been considering ways of trying to persuade players to have two cards, > and to exchange them with opps, for example, by not keeping score ourselves > on the inside of _our_ cards, and by giving our cards to opps along with > "here, this is yours for the round," or something similar. I expect to get > a few stares, but... If I can legitimately complain to a club TD that he's > violating his charter by not requiring pairs to comply with this reg, > perhaps I'll do that, too. > One of our local clubs, noted for the food available at its games, has a large wall sign. "No convention cards. No dessert." -- 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 Tue Jun 8 00:12:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:12:04 +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 AAA19950 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:11:39 +1000 (EST) From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru Received: from h87.50.elnet.msk.ru by relay1.telekom.ru (8.8.7/1.58) id SAA03243; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:11:08 +0400 (MSK DST) Message-ID: <375C60B1.2E47@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:15:46 -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: preface_to_the_Laws References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA20C1B6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3755F3E1.12D2@elnet.msk.ru> <3759643C.4830@elnet.msk.ru> <37599D43.1642@elnet.msk.ru> <37599E13.45C2@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Would you be so kind as to explain why there is no Scope part in the preface of European version of the Laws. It is so in Britain version as in ACBL version. Might it be made deliberately? Any ideas? As we are finishing the Russian translation of the Laws it is quite essential for us: we are under authority of the EBL. Then should we included the Scope or not? Tnx in advance Vitold From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 00:19:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:19:56 +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 AAA21529 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:19:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.80.157]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA10CA for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:19:13 +0100 Message-ID: <000601beb0f0$dcc525e0$9d508cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: establishment Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 15:19:22 +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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >++++ Coming late to supper I have just picked up the above. > Would I be right in assuming that South has led and has retained >the lead; West and North have followed suit and East has >revoked, South leads to the following trick, East wakes up and >announces that he has revoked, and West then plays a card to >the second of the tricks? > If so, is the law unclear? Will the Director not rule >1. East has discovered the irregularity and drawn attention >to it BEFORE the revoke was established, so (Law 62A) he >MUST correct it. This is not optional. >2. East's withdrawn card (62B1) becomes a penalty card. >3. South led to the second trick after the revoke and before >attention was drawn to it. Law 62C1 allows South to >withdraw his led card if he wishes. >4. If South does change his card West may then withdraw >his card also but it too becomes a penalty card. If South >does not change his lead to the second trick West's card >can not be changed since 62C2 only allows this if the >non-offending side has exercised its option. ? ####### There is one further twist to this that would allow West to change his card even if South does not. Suppose that, in correcting the revoke, East wins the revoke trick and is now on lead. The card that East first played to the revoke trick is a major penalty card and therefore must now be led to the next trick. The card that South originally led to the post-revoke trick might constitute a legal play to this new lead by East and South might elect to let it stand. West's card that was originally played to South's lead might not constitute a legal play to East's new lead and therefore would have to be changed and would itself become a major penalty card. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 00:54:17 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA21648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:54:17 +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 AAA21643 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:54:08 +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 OAA26144 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 14:53:29 GMT Message-ID: <375BDD02.30A7E253@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 16:53:54 +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: establishment References: <$FguwPAED7W3EwCW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson a écrit : > Grattan wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > > >> No, he has not got the *right* to play another card [L9B2] - but the > >> question is what happens if he does so anyway. Since it would normally > >> be detrimental to his side if he established the revoke thereby it is > >> difficult to believe he would do so deliberately [and L72B1 would apply > >> if we could actually construct a situation where it was to his benefit]. > >> > >> I think the problem comes where one player is saying "Stop!" just as > >> his partner has taken a card out and plays it through inertia. > > >++++ Coming late to supper I have just picked up the above. > > Would I be right in assuming that South has led and has retained > >the lead; West and North have followed suit and East has > >revoked, South leads to the following trick, East wakes up and > >announces that he has revoked, and West then plays a card to > >the second of the tricks? > > If so, is the law unclear? Will the Director not rule > >1. East has discovered the irregularity and drawn attention > >to it BEFORE the revoke was established, so (Law 62A) he > >MUST correct it. This is not optional. > >2. East's withdrawn card (62B1) becomes a penalty card. > >3. South led to the second trick after the revoke and before > >attention was drawn to it. Law 62C1 allows South to > >withdraw his led card if he wishes. > >4. If South does change his card West may then withdraw > >his card also but it too becomes a penalty card. If South > >does not change his lead to the second trick West's card > >can not be changed since 62C2 only allows this if the > >non-offending side has exercised its option. ? > > [snip irrelevant bit] > > >But this is so simple that I must have missed something, > >unless, that is, someone has indulged in a muddled and > >incorrect idea that a post-discovery play by West > >establishes the revoke. This is not the case. > > Very definitely put. But no, the Law is not unclear. It says, quite > clearly, > > LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE > > A. Revoke Becomes Established > A revoke becomes established: > 1. Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick > when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the > following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes > the revoke). > > Neither you nor anyone else have put a case that suggests to me we do > not follow this [perfectly clear] Law. Ok, you have said "this is not > the case" but with nothing to back it up. > > So far, the arguments over this particular one remind me of Buenos > Aires in 1965. Everyone knows the truth: no-one can see each other's > side. If anyone is wondering why I am not posting what the answer is it > is because [a] I do not know for sure yet and [b] the arguments so far > are unconvincing. > -- > David Stevenson I am also amazed to see so many clear-cut but contradictory advices about this case. It seems to depend on which law they read first: 62 a revoke is corrected when... or 63 a revoke is established when... as each one seems to be definitive and not to require reading the other one. Wishful to understand what is confusing (or wrong?) in these laws, I will try to look for an assymetry. Several actions turn around revokes: they can be made, seen, corrected, established. L63C tells when a revoke may no more be corrected (once established) but L62 doesn't tell when a revoke no more may be established (when corrected? when attention drawn to it? when TD called? other?). Strictly reading L63, one could argue a revoke, once made, will always be established (even if identified, corrected, forgiven...) as player and partner will (usually!) always come to play to the next trick! JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 01:39:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA21768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:39:52 +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 BAA21763 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:39:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from p79s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.122] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10r1Rt-00056H-00; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:36:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001801beb0fb$211ed060$7aa493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Valerie Rippon" , "Ron Endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Lynn & Dan Hunt" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: , "paul endicott" , "JOAN GERARD" , "Christine Francin" , "Carol von Linstow" , "blml" Subject: Absence Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 13:59:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:51:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from pbbs14a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.142.188] helo=pacific) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10r2cS-0006HI-00; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:51:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001401beb105$9b38db20$bc8e93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: establishment Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:45:20 +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: 07 June 1999 13:57 Subject: Re: establishment >Grattan wrote: > >>> From: David Stevenson > [a] I do not know for sure yet and [b] the arguments so far >are unconvincing. > +++ Well, if you think the position is other than as I put it you are way off beam. You will have observed that Kojak put it less gently than I. If West's play is after East has announced his discovery by the time West has played his card 62A has already had effect. It does not require the Director to be present for the position to be mandatory, and it is a 'must' law. The Director when he arrives is required to deal with the sequence of events as they occurred. Directors just need to read the laws with care, it is not difficult. And whilst I do not think the WBFLC has had to deal with a case it is something I have discussed with Kaplan in connection with WBF appeal committee matters. ~ Grattan ~ +++ ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 02:55:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:55:05 +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 CAA22148 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:54:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.87.114]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA2E38 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:54:31 +0100 Message-ID: <002401beb106$8fb6e200$72578cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: establishment Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:54:47 +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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: SNIP >>But this is so simple that I must have missed something, >>unless, that is, someone has indulged in a muddled and >>incorrect idea that a post-discovery play by West >>establishes the revoke. This is not the case. > > Very definitely put. But no, the Law is not unclear. It says, quite >clearly, > >LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE > >A. Revoke Becomes Established > A revoke becomes established: > 1. Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick > when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the > following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes > the revoke). > > Neither you nor anyone else have put a case that suggests to me we do >not follow this [perfectly clear] Law. Ok, you have said "this is not >the case" but with nothing to back it up. > > So far, the arguments over this particular one remind me of Buenos >Aires in 1965. Everyone knows the truth: no-one can see each other's >side. If anyone is wondering why I am not posting what the answer is it >is because [a] I do not know for sure yet and [b] the arguments so far >are unconvincing. > ########## Like DWS, I have been in two minds about this one and it is far less clear to me that the situation is as simple and clear cut as Grattan would have us believe. The only argument that sways me in favour of Grattan's point of view, curiously enough, is DWS's usual principle of dealing with multiple infractions in chronological order (and I have sometimes disagreed with this in the past!). Thus, if attention is drawn to the revoke by East *first*, then this takes precedence over West's illegal play to the trick and the revoke must be corrected. ############ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 03:13:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:13:48 +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 DAA22201 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:13:32 +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 10r2xW-000DwS-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:13:15 +0000 Message-ID: <9sbOnCDGdxW3Ewhz@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 01:50:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <375A6F65.618A5E1D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <375A6F65.618A5E1D@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes snip > >Well, the easy directing falls short here, doesn't it ? > >Just tell me what the penalty is, one trick or two, when the >Law refers to cards taking tricks and there is legally no >play ? Two tricks > >David isn't proposing a Law change, he simply wants to make >the Law complete. This thing isn't covered, that's all >there is to it ! > Law 12A1, if you're not prepared to allow L72B1 (which I'd like to use, but DWS doesn't agree). It seems to me that if you can punish BOOTs with L72B1 then you can punish revokes too. They are both (generally) unintentional IMO and in both cases the offending side "could have known at the time of the infraction " etc 84D and 84E also seem to cover it Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 03:15:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:15:59 +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 DAA22222 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 03:15:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <9207-27818>; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:15:21 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id SAA12176 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:33:02 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: establishment Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:33:26 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F395@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: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883749B980@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson wrote: > Very definitely put. But no, the Law is not unclear. It says, quite >clearly, > >LAW 63 - ESTABLISHMENT OF A REVOKE > >A. Revoke Becomes Established > A revoke becomes established: > 1. Offending Side Leads or Plays to Next Trick > when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the > following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes > the revoke). > > Neither you nor anyone else have put a case that suggests to me we do >not follow this [perfectly clear] Law. Ok, you have said "this is not >the case" but with nothing to back it up. At the moment that East announced his revoke, this revoke is not established, since West didn't play yet. According to 62A, the revoke must be corrected. This is done by (62B1) East who follows to the offending trick. But now West plays a card. This is considered a play out of turn (since East must play now to correct his revoke) and is accordingly dealt with: it becomes a major penalty card. You will get a contradiction if you accept West's card as played in sequence on South's lead in the next trick: is the revoke unestablished (because East called before West played) or established (because West played in the next trick)? In the case that East wins the trick after his corrected revoke, it is not always the case that he must play his major penalty card. In withdrawing cards (or as above, where West played out of turn) it could be that West too has a major penalty card. If South then exercises his right to require or forbid the suit of West's penalty card, then East could be forbidden to play his penalty card: according to 50D1, the obligation to comply with a lead/play penalty takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 07:12:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA22718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:12:03 +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 HAA22713 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:11:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegco.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.65.152]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17474 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990607170946.007607bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 17:09:46 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: An urgent decission neede In-Reply-To: References: <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B422@MESSENGER> <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B422@MESSENGER> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:11 PM 6/7/99 +0100, DWS wrote: >Ercan wrote: > >>Hands : > >IMP pairs Q9x W N E S > Q98x > K P P P > Axx K98xx Txx 1D Dbl 1H 2S > A10xx KJxx Dbl AP > Qxxx JTxx > QJ KJxx Axx Player (S) asked east what "dbl" > x means , and east said it is a > Axxxx "Penalty Double" > Txx > >T1: W CQ CK CA* Cx >T2: E Cx CT CJ* Cx >T3: W Dx DK* Dx Dx >T4: N Sx Sx SK SA* >T5: W HA* Hx Hx Hx >T6: W Hx H8 HJ Sx* > >>At this point if declarer draw two round of trumps , makes 2S if S breaks >>3-3. But becouse of pentlty double , and seeing CA and HK at E hand , played >>for going one down, since he would go many down if the S suit doesn't break >>even. (Hint : NS players are experts , while E-W players are intermidiate) >> >>S asked for director and said that altough E explained dbl as penalty, W >>does not have a penalty dbl (neither trump holding nor strength) , and >>without this info it is easy for him to draw the suit and makes 2S. >> >>What is your decision ? > > Unfortunately we do not really have full information. What are the >E/W agreements? Was this really a penalty double? After all, the hand >itself proves nothing: there was a case in England several years ago >where a visiting foreign pair doubled a 2C overcall of 1NT for penalties >holding a small singleton club. I ruled against them, but they >convinced the AC [chaired by Grattan] that they were playing penalty >doubles: no infraction, no adjustment. > > It is not obvious, looking at West's hand, what it is mean to be. He >does not have a penalty double [poor spades, hearts too long], a co- >operative double [hearts too long, not strong enough], a competitive >double [hearts too long], a support double [not three hearts], a >negative double [wrong suits] or a takeout double [wrong suits]. >Perhaps he mis-sorted his hand! > > I would expect E/W to tell me what double means and why West bid it. >It is not inconceivable that they will convince me it is penalties, >though it seems very strange [especially at IMP pairs, rather than >matchpoints]. I shall tend to rule against them unless they are fairly >convincing, and would normally rule 2S*= because it might be made. > It is certainly not an easy problem, and points up an intrinsically difficult area in the Laws. Although I agree with David that we should probe the EW methods for evidence of a specific agreement, it is quite probable that we shall find none. East was asked about the meaning of the double, and attempted to answer the question based on his own best judgement of what the double should mean. Presumably, he took the not unreasonable view that undiscussed doubles are for penalty, and absent any specific contrary agreement (e.g., support, Rosencranz) I would tend to prefer that treatment myself. Perhaps a more technically correct response would have been "we have no agreement." But if the assumption that undiscussed doubles tend to be penalty-oriented is (at least) an implicit part of the partnership style, then this answer is not only unhelpful, but illegal, as it fails to disclose important relevant information. So East is in somewhat of a bind in answering this question, and the proposition that EW can be penalized simply for being unable to satisfactorily document their "agreements" seems unduly harsh, and in fact, unrealistic. But what I find troubling in David's response is the notion that EW are presumptively guilty of some infraction in this case, and bear the onus of convincing the TD/AC that there is in fact a specific agreement to treat this double as penalty. Obviously West's double is fairly ridiculous, however intended, but a simple affirmation that he had intended it as penalty would seem sufficient to answer the charge of MI, there being no plausible counter-explanation of his motive. If West intended his double for penalties, East took it for penalties (as he obviously did) and truthfully explained his interpretation to the opponents, then exactly what is the infraction for which a score adjustment can be applied? Actually, my suspicion is that West suffered a compound screw-up, thinking he was playing some variety of support/Rozencranz double, and confusing his major-suit holdings, i.e., intending to show either 3-card or honor-third in partner's suit. Admittedly this requires two stupid mistakes on West's part, which on the face of it makes it less likely than simply mis-evaluating his hand for a penalty double, but the mis-evaluation is _so_ bad that either my theory or some variation seems, on the whole, more creditable. But suppose West sheepishly admits to something like that: "I don't know. At first I was trying to remember if I play support doubles with Bill, and then I remembered that we don't, but somehow that idea was in my mind and I was thinking of the spade suit and, well, the double card just came out. Stupid, really." Now what? IMO, South has been fixed, not by MI, but by a clueless action by an opponent. Sad, to be sure, but hardly actionable. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 08:46:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:46:31 +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 IAA22903 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:46:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem82.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.210] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10r89k-0002EQ-00; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:46:13 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Jean Pierre Rocafort" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:33:30 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "We have written the laws of bridge in English as the most generally spoken language, and our achievement is a status for English as the most widely misunderstood language." Grattan Endicott, speech, June 6 1999. -ooOoo- ---------- From: Jean Pierre Rocafort To: Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment Date: 07 June 1999 15:53 David Stevenson a écrit : > Grattan wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > > >> No, he has not got the *right* to play another card [L9B2] - but the > >> question is what happens if he does so anyway. I am also amazed to see so many clear-cut but contradictory advices about this case. -- ++++ Indeed, Jean-Pierre, and I do not propose to repeat myself. However, you will have read Schoder's comment and this will tell you how he would instruct both his assistant directors and an appeal committee on the interpretation of the law in a WBF competition. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 08:46:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:46:34 +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 IAA22904 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:46:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem82.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.210] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10r89m-0002EQ-00; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:46:14 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , Subject: Re: preface_to_the_Laws Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:01:13 +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=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- "We have written the laws of bridge in English as the most generally spoken language, and our achievement is a status for English as the most widely misunderstood language." Grattan Endicott, speech, June 6 1999. -ooOoo- > From: vitold@elnet.msk.ru > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: preface_to_the_Laws > Date: 08 June 1999 01:15 > > Hi all:) > > Would you be so kind as to explain why there is no Scope part in the > preface of European version of the Laws. It is so in Britain version as > in ACBL version. Might it be made deliberately? Any ideas? > ++++ I do not know what version you describe as the European Version? The Scope and Interpretation section is part of the official text promulgated by the World Bridge Federation. I am aware of a European Version on floppy disk which was actually prepared before the various prefatory items had all arrived from Ralph Cohen. If this happens not to quote the Scope and Interpretation this is an omission, but the Scope and Interpretation is part of the book by agreement. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 09:28:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:28:27 +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 JAA22982 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:28:17 +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 10r8oG-0006Y0-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:28:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:18:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >From: Jean Pierre Rocafort > I am also amazed to see so many clear-cut but contradictory advices about >this >case. >++++ Indeed, Jean-Pierre, and I do not propose to repeat myself. >However, you will have read Schoder's comment and this will tell >you how he would instruct both his assistant directors and an appeal >committee on the interpretation of the law in a WBF competition. I am very surprised at the total negativity of this approach. We have a problem with the Laws. There are two reasonable readings of particular Laws that come to different conclusions. Rather than give any reason why one should be followed rather than the other the sole reason given is that this is the way it is. Clear thinking people, including yourself, have never found this a satisfactory argument. If we tried to argue a different point in this fashion you would not accept it. When a Director or Appeals Committee reads a Law in a particular way, which is a reasonable reading of the Law, and is informed they are wrong it would be considerably more helpful to them to be given some reason as to why their reading is wrong rather than Grattan and Kojak say so. Furthermore, I cannot find an article from Kojak on the subject. Are you sure he has pronounced? -- 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 Jun 8 09:40:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:40:21 +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 JAA23035 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:40:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id SAA08971 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:40:49 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906072340.SAA08971@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:40:49 -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 > GrantS wrote: > > > I agree. But look at what you are now proposing in this case--you > >are proposing that we defy the ordinary rules of claims and concessions > >[DWS is even proposing a law change, or the use of L12!], in order to > >_create_ a two-trick penalty situation that didn't previously exist! I > >hold that this is: > > a) Unnecessary, since claim/concession and revoke laws are quite > >adequate in this situation. > > b) Unwarranted, since it would conflict with The Scope of the > >Laws. > > c) Unfitting for the altar of easy directing! :) > > Why are you only prepared to look at one side? Please, compare the > two. > > Side A committed no infraction and did nothing wrong. > Side B committed an infraction, namely they revoked. > > You are giving the benefit of the doubt to Side B. Are sure you are > happy with this? In this case, yes. In this case Side A has claimed [conceded], and we also give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] side. Further, the 'benefit of the doubt' here concerns whether to award a bonus revoke trick unrelated to equity, and I see no reason to strain to award such tricks when not necessary. If this were a question of equity, I would most certainly feel uncomfortable giving the benefit of the doubt to the side which had previous committed an offence. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 09:45:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:45:40 +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 JAA23089 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:45:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id SAA09419 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:46:15 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906072346.SAA09419@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:46:15 -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 > grantS wrote: > > > So what it comes down to is this--you wish to reward a player who > >made an incomplete concession statement with an extra bonus trick which is > >in no way a part of equity. So you will create a situation where a player > >who claims poorly in violation of L68C always gets the benefit of the > >doubt in the awarding of free revoke tricks, while the player who claims > >properly gets them only some of the time. In order to secure this benefit > >for bad claimers, we will invoke L12? > > You wish to reward a revoker because his opponent makes a > claim/concession which would always be completely perfect except for the > revoke. I'm not rewarding the revoker anything at all! The revoker has in no way benefittted from his revoke by a single trick. Further, I see no reason why the person who concedes without saying how he'll play the cards should be given more tricks than the person who plays the hand out or the person who concedes _and_ states how he'll play the cards. Why should vague concession be rewarded? Again, if I thought revoker was actually going to _gain something_ or _benefit_ from his revoke, my ruling would certainly be different. But that's a simple application of L64C. > [s] > > > Claimer is also an offender, if he did not "[clarify] the order in > >which the cards will be played". > > This is complete rubbish, and shows a lack of tolerance for the bridge > player that is unacceptable. He made a statement that you know very > well was a complete statement except in the case of an opponent's > revoking. That is not an infraction. I agree that my comments were unduly harsh. But, by contrast, I think everyone else is being too hard on revoker. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 09:54:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:54:17 +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 JAA23122 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:54:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id SAA10061 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:54:57 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906072354.SAA10061@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:54:57 -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 > GrantS wrote: > > > Well, we agree on one thing anyway--we cannot retract this > >concession. :) > > Okay, so I'll ask again. Suppose there had been no concession, > >but declarer had in fact played his club to let West win the last two > >tricks. Do we give declarer two tricks anyway? On the basis of L64C? > > No, but at least if he played it out he had a 50/50 chance of two > tricks. You are giving him a zero chance of two tricks. Yes. He conceded. Tough break. I still maintain that one should not reward those who concede [or claim] without stating a line of play _above_ those who play the hand out or who concede/claim _and_ state a line of play. Those people who played the hand out or said "I'll play x and lose the last two" have a 50/50 chance of getting a free reward trick. Those who concede without doing so don't. If you can find a way to give him 50% of a trick, I'd support that, at least if we're playing IMPs. :) > [s] > > > I see no reason why they should have to say anything whatsoever > >about _why_ declarer is claiming or conceding. I, frankly, don't see the > >problem. Declarer played the cards [or indicated that he would play the > >cards] in a certain way. > > Oh no he did not! He said he was conceding two tricks to West, but he > did not say which card he was playing. In effect he was in a position > where he would have had a 50/50 chance of two tricks, but since you wish > to give the benefit of any doubt to revoker you are taking his 50% > chance away. I wish to resolve doubtful points against the person who conceded. He conceded. By doing so, he gave up any possible tricks from a squeeze he didn't see, or tricks from a high card he had but had forgotten to cash, or bonus tricks from revokes that he might have gotten. That's what happens when you concede. > > Had he played them in a different way, he would > >have been granted a bonus trick by L64. He didn't, so he doesn't get it. > >This happens all the time. I have had many occasions where I could have > >triggered a two-trick penalty by playing the cards differently, but I > >didn't. It never occurred to me that I might have grounds for a > >director's call just because of that. > > It is not the same. He had a 50/50 shot: you took it away. Hirsch Davis stated that the revoker had committed an infraction, that the loss of the extra possible revoke trick was 'damage', and that therefore we must adjust. I made this comment with that in mind. But, again, there were times when, without knowing it, I had a 50/50 shot at a bonus trick, but I played it out and got it wrong. Had I not played it out, why automatically give me the trick? > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 10:09:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:09:52 +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 KAA23173 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:09:43 +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 10r9SN-000C3c-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:09:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:45:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: preface_to_the_Laws References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: >++++ I do not know what version you describe as the European Version? The WBF bridge site at http://www1.bridge.gr/dept/laws/laws.htm contains a version which it calls "European edition as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation and approved by the European Bridge League. Effective October 1997." It contains a copyright notice [as does the English version] saying where it is applicable but has no Scope. It keeps to the WBF wording in L6C ["deck" not "pack"] and L12C3 ["to do equity" not "to achieve equity"]: the American version also does but the English version does not. >The Scope and Interpretation section is part of the official text promulgated >by the World Bridge Federation. I am aware of a European Version on floppy >disk which was actually prepared before the various prefatory items had all >arrived from Ralph Cohen. If this happens not to quote the Scope and >Interpretation this is an omission, but the Scope and Interpretation is part >of the book by agreement. Perhaps this could be made clear to the relevant authority. I think [but am not sure] that the version on the WBF website was actually provided by the BBL. There is a downloadable version on the BBL website: links to all versions on my Lawspage. -- 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 Jun 8 10:09:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:09:50 +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 KAA23172 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:09:42 +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 10r9SN-000C3d-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:09:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:48:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199906072340.SAA08971@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906072340.SAA08971@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk GrantS wrote: > In this case, yes. In this case Side A has claimed [conceded], >and we also give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] >side. Further, the 'benefit of the doubt' here concerns whether to award >a bonus revoke trick unrelated to equity, and I see no reason to strain to >award such tricks when not necessary. > If this were a question of equity, I would most certainly feel >uncomfortable giving the benefit of the doubt to the side which had >previous committed an offence. I really cannot see why equity comes into it. I believe that if we have a choice between taking a trick off the offending side or the non- offending side it seems wrong to take it away from the non-offending side. -- 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 Jun 8 10:16:26 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:16:26 +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 KAA23231 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:16:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id TAA11577 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:17:04 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906080017.TAA11577@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:17:04 -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 > > > resolved using a revoke penalty, we are in fact saying to > > > players never to claim, because they might lose out on a > > > possible revoke penalty. > > > > This is the strongest argument for giving the two-trick penalty. > > Thanks. > > > But I cannot accept it: > > No need to, if you can argue against it, let's see : > > > 1) People do sometimes lose tricks by claiming. Last week I > > claimed, and realized later that had I played out the cards I could have > > created a squeeze that could have netted me an extra trick. I didn't see > > it at the time, so I gave opponents a trick at the end they might not have > > gotten. Too bad--claim/concession law tells us [quite rightly] that I am > > not entitled to a trick for this reason. I want to encourage claims, but > > I must admit that sometimes you get more tricks by not claiming. [OTOH, > > sometimes you screw something up by playing out the hand, and you would > > have been better off claiming.] > > This argument is concerned with 'bad' claims. In the case > under discussion, there is no evidence whatsoever of a bad > claim. Given all the information available to declarer, his > claim is rock solid. There is no way whatsoever that he can > make another trick. So he simply concedes. And it may well > be that he concedes without a definite line. That's not my point. My point is, quite simply, that when you claim or concede L70 and L71 now tell us that the burden of proof is on _you_. You must prove that you couldn't have lost the tricks you claimed, or if you wish to take back your concession you must prove that you really couldn't have lost those tricks. It is not good enough to say "But I see now that I _might_ have won more tricks, if...." Declarer conceded. The minute he did so, he lost the benefit of the doubt for all tricks subsequent to his concession. Yes, that means that sometimes you don't get as many tricks because you conceded [or claimed] as you _might_ have if you played it out. Yes, that's one reason not to claim or concede. That is regrettable, but that's the way L70 and L71 are written [and rightly so, for different reasons]. > > 2) The problem only arises when you claim _without making a > > statement of how you will play the hand out_. Had declarer in our case > > said "I'll lead my losing spade now and give West the last two tricks" I > > certainly would have awarded him the two-trick penalty. [And we agree, I > > assume, that had he said "I'll lead my losing club now and give West the > > last two tricks", we would both award the one-trick penalty just as we > > would if he had played out the hand and lost the two tricks to West. I'm > > not sure Hirsch agrees we me, but I _think_ you do....] > > > > So now you will punish a player for not making a complete > statement, when in fact, no statement is necessary for a > concession of all tricks? Are you saying that if declarer had opened his hand one trick earlier and said "I'll take my winning heart and then give you the last two" you would agree with my argument because a claim requires a statement of a line of play? :) In any case, what our conceder _did_ say was that he was losing two tricks to West. Had he lost two tricks to West, he would have gotten only the one-trick penalty result. So, again, I say that we cannot take back his concession because nothing in L71 allows it. > > So what it comes down to is this--you wish to reward a player who > > made an incomplete concession statement with an extra bonus trick which is > > in no way a part of equity. So you will create a situation where a player > > who claims poorly in violation of L68C always gets the benefit of the > > doubt in the awarding of free revoke tricks, while the player who claims > > properly gets them only some of the time. In order to secure this benefit > > for bad claimers, we will invoke L12? > > > > I repeat, no clarification is needed for a concession, only > for a claim. L68C applies to "claim", while L68A and L68B > clearly make a distinction between a claim and a concession. > Do declarer is not in violation of L68C, as you state. > Sorry, your argument does not float. Okay. Let us now leave out those handful of cases where we have a concession of all remaining tricks. Would you agree with my argument for all cases where declarer claims at least one trick and concedes the rest? > > > OK let's make it (hypothetically) more difficult : > > > Declarer simply concedes without stating which of his two > > > losers he will play. One will give two tricks to west, the > > > other to east. > > > > L71 tells us his concession of both tricks stands, except for the > > exceptions under 'A' and 'C'. In this case, I reward declarer's violation > > of L68C by giving both tricks to the non-revoker. > > > > See above. > And we are not talking about concession withdrawn, only > about determination of revoke penalty. We are talking about a concession withdrawn. He gave two tricks to West. West can win two tricks. Now he wants to give one trick to East instead. So he wants to retract his concession. :) > > > Or even more difficult : suppose it is west who, after > > > gaining the lead (with three cards to go), has two > > > possibilities : making the final tricks himself, or passing > > > them to partner. > > > > If you mean that at this point West claims without stating a line > > of play, I award one of the tricks to the revoker. > > > > No, south has conceded, and he has not given a clarification > statement which included the cards west or east are supposed > to be playing. > So even if you demand a clarification (which you can't), > there still remain some problems. In this case I rule in favor of the defenders. When you concede, you lose the benefit of the doubt regarding tricks subsequent to the concession. It doesn't matter who's on lead. > > So the one-trick line is the 'worst' for the declarer, and the > > two-trick line is the 'worst' for the defenders. WTP? > > > > Claim laws tell us to give the worst line to claimer, but > that can only count when claimer has made some 'mistake'. Why? I see nothing in the laws that say this. Certainly you must agree that directing is much easier, and interpreting the laws much simpler, if we simply say that claimer/conceder always gets the worst of all [unspecified!!!] lines, right? > Here it is opponents who have created the 'mistake', so > clearly, claimer should not suffer the 'worst' possible > result, but rather the 'best' (to him). Obviously, I disagree. I don't think declarer should always be given two tricks whenever he _might have_ gotten them [but we don't know because he conceded without saying how he'd play]. > > > This is not in the Laws. Sorry about that. > > > > It is not explicitly in the laws, but it looks like a fairly easy > > extrapolation to me. > > > > And to me. But exactly the opposite. > So it is not as easy as you say, is it ? Well, again, I think my interpretation of the laws is certainly easier to apply and explain. What if declarer had 4 losers left, only one of which [if played first] would produce a revoke trick? What if he claims some tricks, but states an impossible line of play? [Or maybe you're not the person I should be asking that, since you and I are apparently more lenient to ambiguous claims ordinarily :)]. What if declarer has also revoked? > > Claimer is also an offender, if he did not "[clarify] the order in > > which the cards will be played". I resolve the claim in favor of the > > non-offending side [the non-claimers], and _then_ resolve the revoke in > > favor of the non-offending side [the non-revokers]. In this case, that > > result produces [drum roll] Equity! We should be celebrating--opposing > > infractions yielded equity. > > > > Well, since claimer is not an offender, your argument is > invalid. Sorry. _Claimer_ would be an offender if he states no line of play. I agree with you that one who concedes all remaining tricks without stating a line is not an offender, and so this argument does not apply to the actual case, though it would apply to many like it. > Herman DE WAEL In any case, I repeat my basic position: 1) My interpretation is more consistent with how we usually interpret claims and concessions. 2) My interpretation is simpler to execute. 3) My interpretation accords better with equity and the Scope passage. Against this all that can be said is that declarer had a 50/50 chance of getting a free trick for himself and a free penalty against opponents, and on my interpretation he doesn't get it. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 10:17:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:17:33 +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 KAA23247 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:17:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem124.barney.pol.co.uk ([195.92.7.124] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10r9Zr-0004GW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:17:16 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: Subject: Re: An urgent decission neede Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:14:48 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "We have written the laws of bridge in English as the most generally spoken language, and our achievement is a status for English as the most widely misunderstood language." Grattan Endicott, speech, June 6 1999. -ooOoo- >From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: An urgent decission neede > Date: 07 June 1999 13:11 > > Ercan wrote: > > David wrote: > > I would expect E/W to tell me what double means and why West bid it. > It is not inconceivable that they will convince me it is penalties, > though it seems very strange [especially at IMP pairs, rather than > matchpoints]. I shall tend to rule against them unless they are fairly > convincing, and would normally rule 2S*= because it might be made. > ++++ I do not think we were told the vulnerability? West knows the points are evenly balanced; opponents vulnerable a double for penalties [+200] match pointing is a shot wholly conceivable. The down side is that we hear E/W are a moderate pair. 'Penalty double' - partner is expected to leave it in, though he can take out on a hand very unsuitable for defence {OB 4.7.1(a)}. Prima facie the explanation of the double is credible, but yes we would like to see any available supporting evidence. On the other hand, if vulnerable I might be persuaded I should play to make the contract since one off or three off is not a big difference. And the doubler is entitled to judge for himself what he will make a penalty double on. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 10:18:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:18:55 +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 KAA23265 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:18:47 +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 10r9bC-000Fne-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:18:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 01:15:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <199906072340.SAA08971@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906072340.SAA08971@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu writes >> DWS: >> Side A committed no infraction and did nothing wrong. >> Side B committed an infraction, namely they revoked. >> >> You are giving the benefit of the doubt to Side B. Are sure you are >> happy with this? > Grant: > In this case, yes. In this case Side A has claimed [conceded], >and we also give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] >side. Further, the 'benefit of the doubt' here concerns whether to award >a bonus revoke trick unrelated to equity, and I see no reason to strain to >award such tricks when not necessary. > If this were a question of equity, I would most certainly feel >uncomfortable giving the benefit of the doubt to the side which had >previous committed an offence. > but I said I was conceding two tricks to West who is known to have a spade and a club (actually he hasn't but I'm not expected to know his pard revoked). I might lead a spade, and East (to my surprise and for a two trick penalty) would win it. I might lead a club, and West takes two clubs. Looks like 50/50 to me. and that is more than L84D "resolving any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side" requires for me to deem he led a spade. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 11:32:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA23510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:32:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA23504 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:32:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.101.106]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990608010406.CZRA9004573.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:04:06 +1200 Message-ID: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:00:12 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Obligation to Correct Explaination Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The bidding begins: W N E S 1NT P P Dbl P P 2D* ... and continues with a double from one opponent or the other (I'm sorry I do not know the details here but I do not think that it matters). 2D doubled becomes the final contract and makes with an overtrick. 2D is alerted and explained as diamonds and hearts. The 2D bidder believes that he is showing only diamonds. Subsequently documentation is produced to verify that the explanation was correct. Must East call the director and explain his belief that he was just showing diamonds? The opponents have missed their heart part score - is an adjustment warranted? If East should explain his view of the 2D bid but no further damage results from his failure to explain (2D always makes nine tricks) is a procedural penalty warranted? What would be an appropriate penalty at IMPs which are converted to VPs in a Swiss Teams qualifying match? TIA Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 12:07:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:07:11 +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 MAA23571 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:07:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-205-93.s93.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.205.93]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA00101 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:06:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005001beb153$680df660$5dcd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridgelaws" References: <199906072354.SAA10061@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:05:29 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Bridgelaws Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 7:54 PM Subject: Re: Concession after revoke [snip] > > Hirsch Davis stated that the revoker had committed an infraction, > that the loss of the extra possible revoke trick was 'damage', and that > therefore we must adjust. No that's not quite what I said. >I made this comment with that in mind. But, > again, there were times when, without knowing it, I had a 50/50 shot at a > bonus trick, but I played it out and got it wrong. Had I not played it > out, why automatically give me the trick? > Did you play it wrong as a direct result of an opponent's infraction? If so, you are indeed entitled to the trick. > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 12:27:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:27:42 +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 MAA23616 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:27:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-205-93.s93.tnt4.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.205.93]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA10631 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:27:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005301beb156$48446be0$5dcd7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML Group" References: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:26:09 -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: wayne To: BLML Group Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 9:00 PM Subject: Obligation to Correct Explaination > The bidding begins: > > W N E S > 1NT P P Dbl > P P 2D* ... and continues with a double from one opponent or the > other (I'm sorry I do not know the details here but I do not think that > it matters). 2D doubled becomes the final contract and makes with an > overtrick. > > 2D is alerted and explained as diamonds and hearts. The 2D bidder > believes that he is showing only diamonds. Subsequently documentation > is produced to verify that the explanation was correct. > > Must East call the director and explain his belief that he was just > showing diamonds? > No. > The opponents have missed their heart part score - is an adjustment > warranted? > No. > If East should explain his view of the 2D bid but no further damage > results from his failure to explain (2D always makes nine tricks) is a > procedural penalty warranted? > No. > What would be an appropriate penalty at IMPs which are converted to VPs > in a Swiss Teams qualifying match? > None. > TIA > > Wayne The call by E was correctly alerted and explained. E simply misbid, which is not an infraction. It would only be an infraction if W had misexplained the partnership's agreement. In that case, E should summon the TD at the end of the auction. There would be a cause for adjustment if E took any action based on his partner's misexplanation, but that clearly doesn't apply here. There was no infraction. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 12:36:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:36:11 +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 MAA23639 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:36:04 +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 TAA27158 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <048e01beb156$dd9e5e80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com><02a101beaf70$64f61780$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:29:45 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Although dummy "could have known" (L72B1) that the hidden diamond "would > >be likely to damage the non-offending side," the usual understanding (as > >in L64B3) is that "everyone is responsible for the dummy." > > This is wrong. Nowhere in the Laws is there anything that suggests > everyone is responsible for dummy: it is an old wives' tale [with > apologies to any old wives out there!]. Thanks, David. That old tale was beat into me for so many years that I continued to believed in it, even after the Laws were changed in 1975 to provide for redress when a non-penalty revoke does damage. This very afternoon I asked the club TD what happens when dummy revokes, and she said "Nothing. Everyone is responsible for the dummy." Old tales never die.... > > >Let's see if I have this straight: If dummy revokes for whatever reason, > >no penalty, but the TD determines if the opponents were injured and > >provides redress for any damage. Is that correct? > > Absolutely. Thank you! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 12:56:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:56:39 +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 MAA23685 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:56:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei3c.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.108]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA23291 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:56:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990607225413.00761e74@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:54:13 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination In-Reply-To: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:00 PM 6/8/99 +1200, Wayne wrote: >The bidding begins: > > W N E S >1NT P P Dbl >P P 2D* ... and continues with a double from one opponent or the >other (I'm sorry I do not know the details here but I do not think that >it matters). 2D doubled becomes the final contract and makes with an >overtrick. > >2D is alerted and explained as diamonds and hearts. The 2D bidder >believes that he is showing only diamonds. Subsequently documentation >is produced to verify that the explanation was correct. > >Must East call the director and explain his belief that he was just >showing diamonds? > No, although if he is still under the impression at the conclusion of the auction that 2D=diamonds only, he is obligated to tell the opponents that partner's explanation is incorrect, and typically the director will be summoned at this point. >The opponents have missed their heart part score - is an adjustment >warranted? > Not on the facts presented, although as David Stevenson has emphasized in previous MI cases, it is always advisable to consider possible UI implications when MI is the primary complaint. It does seem as though that will not be an issue in this case, but without the details of the follow-up bidding and the hands, we cannot make that judgement with surety. >If East should explain his view of the 2D bid but no further damage >results from his failure to explain (2D always makes nine tricks) is a >procedural penalty warranted? > Not in my opinion. For what? East has misbid. It was more likely to have hurt his side for him to have done this, but as it happened it hurt the opponents. NS have my sympathy for a fix, but no case for adjustment. Even if NS misdefend due to their wrong belief about East's hand, they are not entitled to redress, because they got what the Laws grant them, which is a correct explanation of the EW _agreements_. This is not necessarily the same thing as a correct description of the opponents' actual holdings. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 12:57:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:57:49 +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 MAA23699 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:57:42 +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 TAA00437 for ; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <04f601beb159$dce73c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990601081142.006eb58c@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990603082102.006f0ac8@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990604103910.00692574@pop.cais.com><025301beaf1d$c0d13100$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:51:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Just don't look to see if opponents are playing penalty doubles, and your > >conscience will be clear. Or, if you know anyway, follow your conscience. > >No TD or AC will penalize you for "sins of omission" that involve > >avoidance of system calls that seem dangerous, for it is only "sins of > >commission" that are subject to scrutiny and possible penalties. > > What do you mean "your conscience will be clear"? Taking a particular > path specifically to avoid the effects of a regulation is illegal. > Whether or not a TD or AC can decide that, certainly the player's > conscience should. One of the main reason for promulgating the "rules" > of bridge is because of the honest people who will follow the "rules" if > they know then. > Fully agreed. What I meant was that there are some regulations that one must follow for reasons of conscience only, because a violation is unlikely to be spotted. Perhaps I didn't express the thought well. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 13:38:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:38:42 +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 NAA23768 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:37:33 +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; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:36:04 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37645a47.1177332@post.tele.dk> References: <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:32:36 -0400 To: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:36 AM -0400 6/7/99, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Sun, 6 Jun 1999 22:44:38 -0400 skrev Ed Reppert: > >>I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense to me. Law 45A: "Each player >>plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table >>immediately before him." > >Does that hold true, if the auction hasn't even started? Law 45 describes correct procedure during the play period. So no, it doesn't hold true if the auction hasn't started. >If not, then clearly the timing matters, which makes my argument >perfectly valid. Uh, uh. Nope. Can't buy it. Show me. >>Had proper procedure been followed, there would have been no problem. Once >>West makes his illegal play, it seems to me Law 63 must take precedence >>over Law 62. > >Seems to you, maybe, but where does the law back you up? The dilemma arises because we seem to have a paradox involving Law 62A, which requires revoker to correct his revoke, and Law 63A1, which states what actions establish a revoke. West has taken such an action; you now argue that _because_ that action creates a paradox, it can't have happened ("it's not a play," I think you said). Where does the law back _you_ up? :-) As for where it backs me up, Law 63A1 says any play, _legal or illegal_, establishes the revoke. West's play was certainly illegal, but it was also certainly a _play_, IAC Law 45. QED. :-) We (including you, I think) had no problem if West is paying attention, and doesn't play on the King of Spades. I daresay we'd have no problem if the trick went 'round to East, he played a spade, and _then_ someone (anyone) pointed out he'd revoked. In the former case Law 62 applies, and in the latter, Law 63 takes precedence. If we agree there, it seems obvious (unless you can show where the rules say a play is not a play ) that we should agree that Law 63 takes precedence in the case under discussion. 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/AwUBN1yP7L2UW3au93vOEQKwLwCgysDfGUP76WzMMYwGRGWwasHCqUsAnica eZghrSkixc09D8FBRT1uvLmD =StFH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 13:57:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:57:34 +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 NAA23829 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:57:27 +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; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:56:03 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:50:14 -0400 To: richard lighton From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (long) Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:30 AM -0400 6/7/99, richard lighton wrote: >One of our local clubs, noted for the food available at its games, >has a large wall sign. > > "No convention cards. No dessert." I like it! :-) 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/AwUBN1yUm72UW3au93vOEQIdUgCgn1R37SZzxAAO7mFDvjY2ihr6G94AoNqL c9FN0D16csl9GZTtj0/upwbj =UJG9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 16:30:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA24072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:30:15 +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 QAA24067 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:30:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip85.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.85]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990608062947.NBDS23271.fep4@ip85.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:29:47 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 06:29:47 GMT Message-ID: <376ab364.6725580@post.tele.dk> References: <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> <01beae2c$362a79e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:32:36 -0400 skrev Ed Reppert: >Uh, uh. Nope. Can't buy it. Show me. My argument is that one cannot make a play while play is suspended (No player shall take any action ...) My argument furthermore is that L62 says "must". How about: After E has called attention to the revoke, it must be corrected. Then there is no revoke. L63 gets no chance to take effect. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 17:41:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA24162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:41:12 +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 RAA24157 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:41:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem96.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.224] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-05.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10rGUx-0002tB-00; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:40:39 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" , "William (Kojak) Schoder" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:35:24 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "We have written the laws of bridge in English as the most generally spoken language, and our achievement is a status for English as the most widely misunderstood language." Grattan Endicott, speech, June 6 1999. -ooOoo- ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: establishment > Date: 08 June 1999 00:18 > > Grattan wrote: > > >From: Jean Pierre Rocafort > > > I am also amazed to see so many clear-cut but contradictory advices about > >this > >case. > > >++++ Indeed, Jean-Pierre, and I do not propose to repeat myself. > >However, you will have read Schoder's comment and this will tell > >you how he would instruct both his assistant directors and an appeal > >committee on the interpretation of the law in a WBF competition. > > I am very surprised at the total negativity of this approach. We have > a problem with the Laws. There are two reasonable readings of > particular Laws that come to different conclusions. Rather than give > any reason why one should be followed rather than the other the sole > reason given is that this is the way it is. Clear thinking people, > including yourself, have never found this a satisfactory argument. If > we tried to argue a different point in this fashion you would not accept > it. > > When a Director or Appeals Committee reads a Law in a particular way, > which is a reasonable reading of the Law, and is informed they are wrong > it would be considerably more helpful to them to be given some reason as > to why their reading is wrong rather than Grattan and Kojak say so. > ++++ Well, if Kojak and I agree it has rather more authority than any other statement that has been contributed on this list. My statement was to back his point and set out the detail of it, as discussed with Kaplan (when we did look at action by offender's partner as an issue). I am content this is where the WBF stands unless we change it in committee, something that Kojak and I could be expected to resist. [G] ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 18:17:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:17:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24196 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:16:47 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10rH30-0003pe-00; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:15:50 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA117279749; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:15:49 +0200 Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:15:47 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jun 05, 1999 12:13:13 PM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to David Stevenson: > >Tim Goodwin wrote: >>At 11:22 PM 6/4/99 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>>>> Read L40B. If oppos are likely to understand the meaning then it is >>>>> legal: well, oppos expect and understand false-cards: oppos do not >>>>> expect psyches, so they are treated differently. >>>>> >>>>I understand that this could come out snide. But I don't mean >>>>it that way. Honest question. >>>> >>>>Does this mean you can't false card against novices? >>> >>> No, I do not think so. I think that it is reasonable to treat general >>>bridge knowledge as existing even if your current oppos are too >>>inexperienced to know it. >> >>Does this mean you believe falsecards are general birdge knowledge while >>psyches are not? > > I believe the fact that falsecards are common and to be expected from >an unknown pair is general bridge knowledge, and I do not believe the >same can be said of psyches. Maybe you should work a distinction between newbies and experienced tournament players into this statement. IMHO experienced players know that their opponents will sometimes psyche, sometimes misbid, and sometimes have different style and hand evaluation. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 18:27:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:27:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24220 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:26:49 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10rHCr-00057T-00; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:26:01 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA118570361; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:26:01 +0200 Subject: Re: Clear enough To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:26:00 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: from "KRAllison@aol.com" at Jun 03, 1999 09:53:37 AM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to KRAllison@aol.com: > >I concur with Grattan that a single occurrence does not create an >understanding.. however, a single occurrence brought to a committee (and of >course the statements about "first time" may be taken to be self-serving) >creates enough stir in my opinion to make partner well aware the next time >such a situation arises that his partner might be "doing it again." Hence my >comments. Being aware that 'partner might do it again' (whatever 'it' is) does not create a partnership agreement. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 20:48:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA24557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:48:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from pop1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24552 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:48:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.154]) by pop1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990608104750.CUWP3998522.pop1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:47:50 +1200 Message-ID: <375CE939.4A83CBF@xtra.co.nz> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 21:58:17 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination References: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> <005301beb156$48446be0$5dcd7ad1@hdavis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Must East call the director and explain his belief that he was just > > showing diamonds? > > > > No. > > The call by E was correctly alerted and explained. E simply misbid, which > is not an infraction. It would only be an infraction if W had misexplained > the partnership's agreement. In that case, E should summon the TD at the > end of the auction. > > There would be a cause for adjustment if E took any action based on his > partner's misexplanation, but that clearly doesn't apply here. > > There was no infraction. > > Hirsch Indeed L75B states "...No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress." but L75D2 states "...After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous ." and in this case, at the time, it was East's opinion that his partner's explanation was erroneous. Does this change matters or is East just lucky that although he did not know at the time his opinion was later proved to be in error. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 21:05:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:05:36 +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 VAA24664 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:05:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-147-134.uunet.be [194.7.147.134]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12462 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:05:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375CEECB.BB4D64AB@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:22:04 +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: <199906072340.SAA08971@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > GrantS wrote: > > > In this case, yes. In this case Side A has claimed [conceded], > >and we also give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] > >side. Further, the 'benefit of the doubt' here concerns whether to award > >a bonus revoke trick unrelated to equity, and I see no reason to strain to > >award such tricks when not necessary. > > If this were a question of equity, I would most certainly feel > >uncomfortable giving the benefit of the doubt to the side which had > >previous committed an offence. > > I really cannot see why equity comes into it. I believe that if we > have a choice between taking a trick off the offending side or the non- > offending side it seems wrong to take it away from the non-offending > side. > Indeed Grant, I don't see your point. There are 12 tricks that everybody agrees who they belong to, and a 13th under discussion. You agree that there is a 50/50 chance that it goes either way, and we don't want to introduce half tricks. Then why do you insist upon giving that trick to a clear offender, and not to someone who has done nothing wrong in a bridge sense and not even in a legal sense (even if you dispute that last point - that 'infraction' is far less severe than a revoke, not ?) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 21:05:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:05:32 +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 VAA24662 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:05:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-147-134.uunet.be [194.7.147.134]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12470 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:05:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375CEF81.6871B4C7@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:25:05 +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: <199906080017.TAA11577@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grant (who continues to call himself cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu) wrote: > > > That's not my point. My point is, quite simply, that when you > claim or concede L70 and L71 now tell us that the burden of proof is on > _you_. You must prove that you couldn't have lost the tricks you claimed, > or if you wish to take back your concession you must prove that you really > couldn't have lost those tricks. It is not good enough to say "But I see > now that I _might_ have won more tricks, if...." Declarer conceded. The > minute he did so, he lost the benefit of the doubt for all tricks > subsequent to his concession. Yes, that means that sometimes you don't > get as many tricks because you conceded [or claimed] as you _might_ have > if you played it out. Yes, that's one reason not to claim or concede. > That is regrettable, but that's the way L70 and L71 are written [and > rightly so, for different reasons]. > You are correct, but we are not discussing the claim. He cannot now say that if he plays by some line, he wins a trick. He has conceded the tricks and does not get them back. Then we rule on the revoke. One trick or two ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 21:05:33 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:05:33 +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 VAA24663 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:05:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-147-134.uunet.be [194.7.147.134]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA12476 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:05:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375CF18F.C0A3615B@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:33:52 +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: <199906080017.TAA11577@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > > > So now you will punish a player for not making a complete > > statement, when in fact, no statement is necessary for a > > concession of all tricks? > > Are you saying that if declarer had opened his hand one trick > earlier and said "I'll take my winning heart and then give you the last > two" you would agree with my argument because a claim requires a statement > of a line of play? :) Indeed, and his line of play for the claim is completely stated, that for the concession isn't, but that's not bad. > In any case, what our conceder _did_ say was that he was losing > two tricks to West. Had he lost two tricks to West, he would have gotten > only the one-trick penalty result. So, again, I say that we cannot take > back his concession because nothing in L71 allows it. > I agree with you that if he clearly gives two tricks to west, that is the line that we decide the revoke upon. But the problem was (or could have been) more difficult. One of the tricks that he "conceded" to West, without telling which one, would actually not go to west, but to revoker east. If he had said, I know play clubs, then perhaps he does not get the second trick. But he did not state which of his two cards he would play to west. (or if he did, then please start considering the more general case). > > Okay. Let us now leave out those handful of cases where we have a > concession of all remaining tricks. Would you agree with my argument for > all cases where declarer claims at least one trick and concedes the rest? > No I would not, because again, declarer usually concedes without giving one specific line of play. > > > > See above. > > And we are not talking about concession withdrawn, only > > about determination of revoke penalty. > > We are talking about a concession withdrawn. He gave two tricks > to West. West can win two tricks. Now he wants to give one trick to East > instead. So he wants to retract his concession. :) > No he doesn't. He has stated he will play either of two cards, both of which (in his opinion) give two tricks to west. He is not retracting this concession. He simply wants the benefit of the best of two lines, both of which he "stated" in some way. > > > > Or even more difficult : suppose it is west who, after > > > > gaining the lead (with three cards to go), has two > > > > possibilities : making the final tricks himself, or passing > > > > them to partner. > > > > > > If you mean that at this point West claims without stating a line > > > of play, I award one of the tricks to the revoker. > > > > > > > No, south has conceded, and he has not given a clarification > > statement which included the cards west or east are supposed > > to be playing. > > So even if you demand a clarification (which you can't), > > there still remain some problems. > > In this case I rule in favor of the defenders. When you concede, > you lose the benefit of the doubt regarding tricks subsequent to the > concession. It doesn't matter who's on lead. > Now do you see that this sometimes also refers to this case ? > > > So the one-trick line is the 'worst' for the declarer, and the > > > two-trick line is the 'worst' for the defenders. WTP? > > > > > > > Claim laws tell us to give the worst line to claimer, but > > that can only count when claimer has made some 'mistake'. > > Why? I see nothing in the laws that say this. Certainly you must > agree that directing is much easier, and interpreting the laws much > simpler, if we simply say that claimer/conceder always gets the worst of > all [unspecified!!!] lines, right? > agreed, but we are not ruling on a concession here, only on a revoke. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 21:38:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA24755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:38:21 +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 VAA24750 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:38:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from pd2s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.211] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10rKCH-0006ji-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:37:38 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:42:37 +0100 Message-ID: <01beb1a4$017a55a0$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: Hirsch Davis To: BLML Group Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 3:53 AM Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination > >----- Original Message ----- >From: wayne >To: BLML Group >Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 9:00 PM >Subject: Obligation to Correct Explaination > > >> The bidding begins: >> >> W N E S >> 1NT P P Dbl >> P P 2D* ... and continues with a double from one opponent or the >> other (I'm sorry I do not know the details here but I do not think that >> it matters). 2D doubled becomes the final contract and makes with an >> overtrick. >> >> 2D is alerted and explained as diamonds and hearts. The 2D bidder >> believes that he is showing only diamonds. Subsequently documentation >> is produced to verify that the explanation was correct. >> >> Must East call the director and explain his belief that he was just >> showing diamonds? >> > >No. > >> The opponents have missed their heart part score - is an adjustment >> warranted? >> > >No. > >> If East should explain his view of the 2D bid but no further damage >> results from his failure to explain (2D always makes nine tricks) is a >> procedural penalty warranted? >> > >No. > >> What would be an appropriate penalty at IMPs which are converted to VPs >> in a Swiss Teams qualifying match? >> > >None. > >> TIA >> >> Wayne > >The call by E was correctly alerted and explained. E simply misbid, which >is not an infraction. It would only be an infraction if W had misexplained >the partnership's agreement. In that case, E should summon the TD at the >end of the auction. > >There would be a cause for adjustment if E took any action based on his >partner's misexplanation, but that clearly doesn't apply here. > >There was no infraction. > >Hirsch I agree with everything which has been said by Hirsch, but think it might be helpful to Wayne if he was referred to Law 75B. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 22:01:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:01:15 +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 WAA24841 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:00:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from p72s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.115] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10rKYT-000708-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:00:34 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:05:34 +0100 Message-ID: <01beb1a7$36638860$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: wayne To: BLML Group Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 12:29 PM Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination >Hirsch Davis wrote: >> > Must East call the director and explain his belief that he was just >> > showing diamonds? >> > >> >> No. > > > >> >> The call by E was correctly alerted and explained. E simply misbid, which >> is not an infraction. It would only be an infraction if W had misexplained >> the partnership's agreement. In that case, E should summon the TD at the >> end of the auction. >> >> There would be a cause for adjustment if E took any action based on his >> partner's misexplanation, but that clearly doesn't apply here. >> >> There was no infraction. >> >> Hirsch > >Indeed L75B states >"...No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he >has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are >subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such >violation, they are not entitled to redress." > >but L75D2 states >"...After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after >the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he >is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his >opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous ." > >and in this case, at the time, it was East's opinion that his partner's >explanation was erroneous. > >Does this change matters or is East just lucky that although he did not >know at the time his opinion was later proved to be in error. > >Wayne East has probably realised that the explanation was correct. If this is not so he calls the TD before the opening lead is faced(Law 75D2) who ascertains what is the actual agreement. He pronounces either that there was MI in which case the last defender to pass can get his call back,(Law 21 B) or as in this case he pronounces no MI and allows play to continue. Damage, yes. Redress , no. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 8 23:18:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA25296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 23:18:57 +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 XAA25275 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 23:18:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 8 Jun 1999 15:17:55 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990608151827.007ddc20@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, 08 Jun 1999 15:18:27 +0200 To: Bridge Laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <375BA6CF.928A2CEF@village.uunet.be> References: <199906061916.OAA06922@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi >Well, since claimer is not an offender, your argument is >invalid. Sorry. And what is with L70A??? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 01:04:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:04:28 +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 BAA28058 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:04:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from spase by alushta.NL.net with UUCP id <5445-10475>; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:03:35 +0200 Received: from calypso (calypso.spase.nl [192.168.200.8]) by pegasus.spase.nl (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA18314 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:49:33 +0200 From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: Obligation to Correct Explaination Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 16:49:10 +0200 Message-ID: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883701F397@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: <001E3E43F117D21199D200A02446883749B9A3@xion.spase.nl> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: >Indeed L75B states >"...No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he >has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are >subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such >violation, they are not entitled to redress." > >but L75D2 states >"...After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after >the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he >is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his >opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous ." > >and in this case, at the time, it was East's opinion that his partner's >explanation was erroneous. > >Does this change matters or is East just lucky that although he did not >know at the time his opinion was later proved to be in error. East could of course wake up when hearing partner's explanation (or somewhat later), and then doesn't need to correct the explanation later (he knows he himself is in error). After all, opponents have only a right to know partnership understandings, not what they actually hold. Of course, in further bidding, East must act as if he is still asleep, since the knowledge that he made a mistake is UI. But when the bidding is over and East is still convinced that his partner explained wrongly, he should summon the TD and correct. Martin Sinot martin@spase.nl From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 01:46:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA28201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:46:20 +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 BAA28195 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:46:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-95-63.uunet.be [194.7.95.63]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA21526 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:45:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375D2F84.C97DAF39@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 16:58:12 +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 after revoke References: <199906061916.OAA06922@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19990608151827.007ddc20@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: > > Hi > > >Well, since claimer is not an offender, your argument is > >invalid. Sorry. > > And what is with L70A??? There is no contested claim !!! The claim is correct : two tricks to the defence. End of Law 70. Now deal with the revoke ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 02:40:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:40:42 +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 CAA28525 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:40:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:39:44 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990608184009.007ad470@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, 08 Jun 1999 18:40:09 +0200 To: BLML Group From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id CAA28526 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:22 08.06.99 +0200, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> GrantS wrote: >> >> > In this case, yes. In this case Side A has claimed [conceded], >> >and we also give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] >> >side. Further, the 'benefit of the doubt' here concerns whether to award >> >a bonus revoke trick unrelated to equity, and I see no reason to strain to >> >award such tricks when not necessary. >> > If this were a question of equity, I would most certainly feel >> >uncomfortable giving the benefit of the doubt to the side which had >> >previous committed an offence. >> >> I really cannot see why equity comes into it. I believe that if we >> have a choice between taking a trick off the offending side or the non- >> offending side it seems wrong to take it away from the non-offending >> side. >> > >Indeed Grant, I don't see your point. > >There are 12 tricks that everybody agrees who they belong >to, and a 13th under discussion. > >You agree that there is a 50/50 chance that it goes either >way, and we don't want to introduce half tricks. > >Then why do you insist upon giving that trick to a clear >offender, and not to someone who has done nothing wrong in a >bridge sense and not even in a legal sense (even if you >dispute that last point - that 'infraction' is far less >severe than a revoke, not ?) Probably because the laws tell him to do. The revoke rules are usually easy to handle. That is IMO the only reason for them. It would be far too diffcult for all TD´s in the world to analyze the ways of play if there would have been no revoke. In 99% of the cases this is enough to know to handle the situation properly for the TD. To make equity in these cases would be far too complicated. BUT: If we have chance from the laws to manage the revoke without this overcompensation-tricks we should catch it. One trick is enough. E has still no chance to win in this situation. Just the possibility that he loses two tricks is enough... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 02:41:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA28537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:41:00 +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 CAA28532 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 02:40:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:40:14 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990608184031.007a3cd0@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, 08 Jun 1999 18:40:31 +0200 To: BLML Group From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just managed to read most of the stuff which was written in this thread. My opinion is: no trick for the claimer Reasons: 1)quoting L64A2: 2. Offending Player Did Not Win Revoke Trick and the trick on which the revoke occurred was not won by the offending player, then, if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side; 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, one such trick is transferred to the non-offending side. The player had to win a trick. But: Play ceases after a concession. So E won no trick here. No concession. So DWS finds L12 (usually not one of his favourites) L70A states, that >>>>>>>>>any doubtful point<<<<<<<<< shall be resolved against the claimer. (That there is no mention of a conceder is no wonder: the lawmakers probably couldnt imagine that there might be doubtful points as well...) 2) I see a great danger in using the claim to be sure of two tricks. Imagine the actual case that the declarer just forgot everything which happened in the hand. Now he has a 50% chance in playing and a 100% chance in claiming to get another trick. You can tell me now, that this is a unrealistic case and you are right. But imagine another case: N S x H - D x C - W E S Q S - H Q H - D - D Q C - C Q South S x H - D - C s decl S contr NT, S on play concedes all tricks E already revoked once in D. Won up to now no trick in D. What should happen here? Best way for S would be to concede all the tricks!!!! (100% shot) to play on (S doesnt know who helds the high cards) So he can be sure, that E will win the trick and he gets one trick back. So: Dont open this pandora box here!!! Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 03:01:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:01:37 +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 DAA28597 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:01:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.53]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990608170117.QPRJ23271.fep4@ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:01:17 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: preface_to_the_Laws Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 19:01:17 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <376048c8.4615596@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 DAA28598 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 00:45:24 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Grattan wrote: >>++++ I do not know what version you describe as the European Version? > > The WBF bridge site at > http://www1.bridge.gr/dept/laws/laws.htm > >contains a version which it calls > > "European edition as promulgated by the World Bridge Federation > and approved by the European Bridge League. Effective October > 1997." > > It contains a copyright notice [as does the English version] saying >where it is applicable but has no Scope. It keeps to the WBF wording in >L6C ["deck" not "pack"] and L12C3 ["to do equity" not "to achieve >equity"]: the American version also does but the English version does >not. If I remember correctly, this "European version" without the "Scope" was the only one that the DBF received officially to base our translation on. At that time I asked BLML whether it could really be true that there was no "Scope" and were told that the "Scope" was a part of the laws. So we translated it from either the English or the ACBL version - I don't remember which. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 03:09:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:09:04 +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 DAA28625 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 03:08:50 +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 10rPMd-000OVH-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:08:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:35:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <199906072354.SAA10061@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906072354.SAA10061@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu writes snip >> DWS >> It is not the same. He had a 50/50 shot: you took it away. > Grant > Hirsch Davis stated that the revoker had committed an infraction, >that the loss of the extra possible revoke trick was 'damage', and that >therefore we must adjust. I made this comment with that in mind. But, >again, there were times when, without knowing it, I had a 50/50 shot at a >bonus trick, but I played it out and got it wrong. Had I not played it >out, why automatically give me the trick? > But I'm only giving you the trick when the opponent has committed an infraction. Had you claimed and there been no infraction I wouldn't have given you the trick, so you'd best play it out. In the case under consideration you *knew* there was no point in playing it out and conceded, so I adjust because there *was* an infraction. >> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 05:19:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 05:19:31 +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 FAA28931 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 05:19:20 +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 10rROs-000Myd-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:19:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:54:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990608184031.007a3cd0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.19990608184031.007a3cd0@mail.rz.uni- duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes snip > >2) I see a great danger in using the claim to be sure of two tricks. >Imagine the actual case that the declarer just forgot everything which >happened in the hand. Now he has a 50% chance in playing and a 100% chance >in claiming to get another trick. You can tell me now, that this is a >unrealistic case and you are right. But imagine another case: > > N > S x > H - > D x > C - >W E >S Q S - >H Q H - >D - D Q >C - C Q > South > S x > H - > D - > C s > >decl S contr NT, S on play >concedes all tricks >E already revoked once in D. Won up to now no trick in D. > >What should happen here? >Best way for S would be to concede all the tricks!!!! (100% shot) to play on >(S doesnt know who helds the high cards) >So he can be sure, that E will win the trick and he gets one trick back. > >So: >Dont open this pandora box here!!! I'm not sure there is a pandora's box here. 1) South knows there's a revoke and knows who has the Q. He doesn't know how to throw East in. His problem. He guesses. If he concedes I'd not adjust as he has all the relevant information to hand, even though it is insufficient to solve the problem 2) South doesn't know there's a revoke and plays on, getting it 'wrong'. He calls the TD. I apply L84E. I'd adjust because there is a concealed infraction, and I think that empowers me to use L12A as I "judge that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the type of violation of Law committed ..." 3) South doesn't know there's a revoke and concedes. I rule as per 2 above. Cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 05:19:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 05:19:33 +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 FAA28929 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 05:19:19 +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 10rROs-000B4m-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 19:19:08 +0000 Message-ID: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:06:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: establishment, and L25A In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Ed Reppert writes snip > >We (including you, I think) had no problem if West is paying attention, and >doesn't play on the King of Spades. I daresay we'd have no problem if the >trick went 'round to East, he played a spade, and _then_ someone (anyone) >pointed out he'd revoked. In the former case Law 62 applies, and in the >latter, Law 63 takes precedence. If we agree there, it seems obvious >(unless you can show where the rules say a play is not a play ) that we >should agree that Law 63 takes precedence in the case under discussion. > > >Regards, > >Ed > Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam values in hearts. North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East passes. North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" which we would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. The TD gets called. Your move. Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 07:53:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 07:53:55 +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 HAA29410 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 07:53:44 +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 RAA11234 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01729 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:53:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:53:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906082153.RAA01729@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Everyone knows the truth: no-one can see each other's side. Let me see if I can prove you wrong. :-) Side 1 says that L62A takes precedence. When East announces the revoke, play stops, and any card exposed by West is not a play. Supporting arguments: 1A, time-ordering: we deal with irregularities in the order they occurred, so we deal first with East's announcement and then with West's exposed card. 1B, simplicity: the TD never has to decide whether West's card is played or not. (Suppose West claims the card was accidentally dropped and not played at all. A partial rebuttal, of course, is that sometimes the TD will have to decide anyway to say whether the penalty card is major or minor.) Side 2 says that L63A1 and L63C take precedence. If West's play really is a play and not a dropped card, the revoke can no longer be corrected in spite of East's attempt. Supporting arguments: 2A, semantics: L62A gives an obligation to the player, but L63A1 is an incontrovertible statement of fact. Similarly, L9B2 puts obligations on the players (they should take no action), but it doesn't say that any action they do take is cancelled (in contrast to, for example L68D). In fact, L9C and L11A contemplate that there might be subsequent actions taken in violation of L9B2. 2B, equity: the side that has committed two infractions (the revoke and West's illegal play) should not benefit, and an established revoke is likely to be worse for them than allowing the correction. > If anyone is wondering why I am not posting what the answer is it > is because [a] I do not know for sure yet and [b] the arguments so far > are unconvincing. Unfortunately, I find arguments on _both_ sides convincing, especially arguments 1B and 2A. Are there others I've missed? If not, I'm afraid I have to join David in his uncertainty about what the laws _say_. Of course if there's an official interpretation, that would tell us what we should _do_, should the circumstances occur. Probably there need to be some general rules for dealing with multiple infractions. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 08:17:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:17:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29505 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:17:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-220-144.s398.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.220.144]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA04545 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00a101beb1fc$7a025240$90dc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML Group" References: <3.0.6.32.19990608184009.007ad470@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:15:50 -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: Richard Bley To: BLML Group Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Concession after revoke [snip] > > > >Then why do you insist upon giving that trick to a clear > >offender, and not to someone who has done nothing wrong in a > >bridge sense and not even in a legal sense (even if you > >dispute that last point - that 'infraction' is far less > >severe than a revoke, not ?) > > Probably because the laws tell him to do. That is what the debate in this thread is about... > The revoke rules are usually easy to handle. That is IMO the only reason > for them. It would be far too diffcult for all TD´s in the world to analyze > the ways of play if there would have been no revoke. In 99% of the cases > this is enough to know to handle the situation properly for the TD. > To make equity in these cases would be far too complicated. > BUT: > If we have chance from the laws to manage the revoke without this > overcompensation-tricks we should catch it. One trick is enough. > This is completely wrong. Our opinion of whether or not the penalty called for by the revoke laws is "overcompensation" or not has no bearing whatsoever on the ruling. If we allow our personal feelings about a Law to color our rulings based on that Law, we should not be directing bridge games. > E has still no chance to win in this situation. Just the possibility that > he loses two tricks is enough... > > Richard > > E committed a revoke. Of course he's not going to win in this situation. South did nothing wrong. Why are you denying him the benefit of his opponent's infraction? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 08:55:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:55:50 +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 IAA29590 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-220-144.s398.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.220.144]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA19435 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:58:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001601beb201$d8ea55a0$90dc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML Group" References: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> <005301beb156$48446be0$5dcd7ad1@hdavis> <375CE939.4A83CBF@xtra.co.nz> Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:54:17 -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: wayne To: BLML Group Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 5:58 AM Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > Must East call the director and explain his belief that he was just > > > showing diamonds? > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > The call by E was correctly alerted and explained. E simply misbid, which > > is not an infraction. It would only be an infraction if W had misexplained > > the partnership's agreement. In that case, E should summon the TD at the > > end of the auction. > > [snip] > but L75D2 states > "...After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after > the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he > is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his > opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous ." > > and in this case, at the time, it was East's opinion that his partner's > explanation was erroneous. > > Does this change matters or is East just lucky that although he did not > know at the time his opinion was later proved to be in error. > > Wayne > > Yes, this indeed changes matters. If E believes that his partner has misexplained his call and does not wake up during the auction, he should summon the TD after the final pass (as declarer). The TD will determine that the explanation of the agreements was indeed correct (based on what you presented earlier), that there was no misinformation, and play will continue. There is still no infraction, and no penalty. A procedural penalty might be considered if E believed his partner had misexplained but did not call the TD. Usually, though, this type of failure occurs because E doesn't know his duties under the Law, and a simple explanation with no penalty is sufficient. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 17:41:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:41:58 +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 RAA00701 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:41:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:41:08 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990609094138.007e62f0@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, 09 Jun 1999 09:41:38 +0200 To: BLML Group From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <00a101beb1fc$7a025240$90dc7ad1@hdavis> References: <3.0.6.32.19990608184009.007ad470@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA00702 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 18:15 08.06.99 -0400, Hirsch Davis wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Richard Bley >To: BLML Group >Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 12:40 PM >Subject: Re: Concession after revoke > > >[snip] >> > >> >Then why do you insist upon giving that trick to a clear >> >offender, and not to someone who has done nothing wrong in a >> >bridge sense and not even in a legal sense (even if you >> >dispute that last point - that 'infraction' is far less >> >severe than a revoke, not ?) >> >> Probably because the laws tell him to do. > >That is what the debate in this thread is about... ok > >> The revoke rules are usually easy to handle. That is IMO the only reason >> for them. It would be far too diffcult for all TD´s in the world to >analyze >> the ways of play if there would have been no revoke. In 99% of the cases >> this is enough to know to handle the situation properly for the TD. >> To make equity in these cases would be far too complicated. >> BUT: >> If we have chance from the laws to manage the revoke without this >> overcompensation-tricks we should catch it. One trick is enough. >> > >This is completely wrong. Our opinion of whether or not the penalty called >for by the revoke laws is "overcompensation" or not has no bearing >whatsoever on the ruling. If we allow our personal feelings about a Law to >color our rulings based on that Law, we should not be directing bridge >games. > hei hei... E has not won any trick up to now. After the claim he has no trick won. Only thing which happened is that the TD decides the number of tricks. So we have a problem. The wording of the laws are more in the direction that there is only one trick penalty for the revoke. (that meets the approach of DWS to use L12). So the responsiblity of interpreting the laws is in first instance by the two-trick group not by the one-trick group. In my opinion you can see it just the other way round. The two-trick group uses the personal feeling about the laws (eg DWS "one trick or two trick penalty - who should we give the trick to the revoker - seems more" and so on....). Anyway: We have to try to find out the reasons for the revoking rules. This is normally a good approach to analyze laws (I know what Im talking from - I studied law and writing my PhD just now.) and to get useful results for using them. >> E has still no chance to win in this situation. Just the possibility that >> he loses two tricks is enough... >> >> Richard >> >> > >E committed a revoke. Of course he's not going to win in this situation. >South did nothing wrong. Why are you denying him the benefit of his >opponent's infraction? > This is not a case of doing sth wrong or not. E has not won any trick. So there is no real base to use. (except using L12) You could say as well: Why should S get a trick more than he could get in any normal play? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 17:48:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:48:01 +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 RAA00730 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:47:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:47:14 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990609094745.007dfcf0@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, 09 Jun 1999 09:47:45 +0200 To: John Probst , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.19990608184031.007a3cd0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id RAA00731 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 19:54 08.06.99 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <3.0.6.32.19990608184031.007a3cd0@mail.rz.uni- >duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes > >snip >> >>2) I see a great danger in using the claim to be sure of two tricks. >>Imagine the actual case that the declarer just forgot everything which >>happened in the hand. Now he has a 50% chance in playing and a 100% chance >>in claiming to get another trick. You can tell me now, that this is a >>unrealistic case and you are right. But imagine another case: >> >> N >> S x >> H - >> D x >> C - >>W E >>S Q S - >>H Q H - >>D - D Q >>C - C Q >> South >> S x >> H - >> D - >> C s >> >>decl S contr NT, S on play >>concedes all tricks >>E already revoked once in D. Won up to now no trick in D. >> >>What should happen here? >>Best way for S would be to concede all the tricks!!!! (100% shot) to play on >>(S doesnt know who helds the high cards) >>So he can be sure, that E will win the trick and he gets one trick back. >> >>So: >>Dont open this pandora box here!!! > >I'm not sure there is a pandora's box here. > >1) South knows there's a revoke and knows who has the Q. He doesn't > know how to throw East in. His problem. He guesses. If he concedes > I'd not adjust as he has all the relevant information to hand, even > though it is insufficient to solve the problem >>>> Why <<< should he get no second trick? > >2) South doesn't know there's a revoke and plays on, getting it 'wrong'. > He calls the TD. I apply L84E. > I'd adjust because there is a concealed infraction, and I > think that empowers me to use L12A as I "judge that these Laws do > not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the > type of violation of Law committed ..." So you are telling now, that S gets a trick more just because E COULD have won a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick. Seems not like the rules are... And try these things with more cards. What a mess. Every revoke will be an adventure after that for you. > >3) South doesn't know there's a revoke and concedes. > I rule as per 2 above. consequent. But I´m astonished that you have no bad feeling with this. If you compare 2) and 1) you are trying to tell that the player who knows more about the things which happened at the table get a clear disadvantage? Normally the player who knows what happens get the better results not the worse... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 18:14:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:14:02 +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 SAA00790 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:13:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:13:29 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990609101359.007edc70@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, 09 Jun 1999 10:13:59 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: establishment In-Reply-To: <199906082153.RAA01729@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:53 08.06.99 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Everyone knows the truth: no-one can see each other's side. > >Let me see if I can prove you wrong. :-) > >Side 1 says that L62A takes precedence. When East announces the revoke, >play stops, and any card exposed by West is not a play. Supporting >arguments: > >1A, time-ordering: we deal with irregularities in the order they occurred, >so we deal first with East's announcement and then with West's exposed >card. > >1B, simplicity: the TD never has to decide whether West's card is >played or not. (Suppose West claims the card was accidentally dropped >and not played at all. A partial rebuttal, of course, is that >sometimes the TD will have to decide anyway to say whether the penalty >card is major or minor.) > >Side 2 says that L63A1 and L63C take precedence. If West's play really >is a play and not a dropped card, the revoke can no longer be corrected >in spite of East's attempt. Supporting arguments: > >2A, semantics: L62A gives an obligation to the player, but L63A1 is an >incontrovertible statement of fact. Similarly, L9B2 puts obligations >on the players (they should take no action), but it doesn't say that >any action they do take is cancelled (in contrast to, for example >L68D). In fact, L9C and L11A contemplate that there might be >subsequent actions taken in violation of L9B2. > >2B, equity: the side that has committed two infractions (the revoke >and West's illegal play) should not benefit, and an established revoke >is likely to be worse for them than allowing the correction. > >> If anyone is wondering why I am not posting what the answer is it >> is because [a] I do not know for sure yet and [b] the arguments so far >> are unconvincing. > >Unfortunately, I find arguments on _both_ sides convincing, especially >arguments 1B and 2A. Are there others I've missed? If not, I'm afraid >I have to join David in his uncertainty about what the laws _say_. Of >course if there's an official interpretation, that would tell us what >we should _do_, should the circumstances occur. > Sorry I dont know either - There are illegal played cards, which can complete the revoke: Take the example and W plays out of turn >>>>> before <<<<< E becomes aware of the revoke. But in this case there is no L62A of course. So I dont know either. For practical things I will take the Kojak/Grattan Approach. At least the players then cannot tell me that on this or this event Kojak ruled just the other way.... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 21:12:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:12:26 +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 VAA01088 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:12:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-131.uunet.be [194.7.80.131]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28633 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:12:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375E426D.FEDB5D00@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:31:09 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A References: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. > > EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam values > in hearts. > > North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East passes. > North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" which we > would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. The TD > gets called. > Like you say, we would have ruled L25A if N states he intended to bid 6H and the 6S card stuck. It now seems that N intended something else. We don't allow the L25A change and stick NS with a L25B penalty. In this case, we will allow a change to 6H or 7H, but with an Av- cap. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 21:12:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:12:25 +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 VAA01087 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:12:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-131.uunet.be [194.7.80.131]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28618 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:12:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375E4155.6A75E643@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:26:29 +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: Concession after revoke References: <3.0.6.32.19990608184009.007ad470@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609094138.007e62f0@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: > > > > hei hei... > E has not won any trick up to now. After the claim he has no trick won. > Only thing which happened is that the TD decides the number of tricks. > So we have a problem. The wording of the laws are more in the direction > that there is only one trick penalty for the revoke. (that meets the > approach of DWS to use L12). So the responsiblity of interpreting the laws > is in first instance by the two-trick group not by the one-trick group. > In my opinion you can see it just the other way round. The two-trick group > uses the personal feeling about the laws (eg DWS "one trick or two trick > penalty - who should we give the trick to the revoker - seems more" and so > on....). > Anyway: We have to try to find out the reasons for the revoking rules. This > is normally a good approach to analyze laws (I know what Im talking from - > I studied law and writing my PhD just now.) and to get useful results for > using them. > We should indeed look at why the Laws are as they are. The revoke penalty is usually one trick. In some cases, the penalty is two tricks. These cases can easily be called those in which the revoker gained a trick by his revoke. So usually a revoker loses a trick. This one extra trick is there to insure that the balance is restored in 95% of the cases. The TD does not have to seek out how to restore equity, the automatic penalty does so for him. In 4% of the cases, this one trick is not enough, and that is why we have L64C. And in 1% of the cases, the two-trick penalty is two tricks above equity. We live with those cases because we don't know how to write the Law so as to avoid them. Like David described the case, equity was at +1. We are discussing +1 or +2. I don't believe it is bad to give this player one extra trick. Even when the equity would be at 0 (a strange happening indeed), I don't believ it is in the disinterest of bridge to award +2 in this case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 21:13:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:13:33 +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 VAA01101 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:13:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-131.uunet.be [194.7.80.131]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28657; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:12:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375E4C20.17C60765@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:12:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Bley , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <3.0.6.32.19990608184927.007a8950@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: > > > The trick is transferred because of doing equity. Not because of revoke-lines > To say exactly (I just found my law-book): > L64C instead of L64A2 > No choice then. This is no problem then. > No "obviously wrong" Very certainly also L64A2. L64C applies to all revokes 'not subject to penalty'. A list of those (I agree, perhaps not a complete list, but I'm certain the Lawmakers would have included this one if they had thought it necessary) is present in L64B. There is no mention there of revokes that are not penalized because the revoke was discovered after a claim. L64A2 simply must refer both to actual tricks and 'fictitious' tricks after a claim. It must! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 21:13:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA01112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:13:34 +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 VAA01102 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:13:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-80-131.uunet.be [194.7.80.131]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA28643; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:12:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <375E4BBF.A5DDF359@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:10:55 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Bley , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199906061916.OAA06922@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.19990608151905.007d8870@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990608182423.0079e100@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 (privately to me, but since then also to the list) and claimed that a trick after a claim cannot be transferred as a "second" penalty trick, to which I replied : > > > > >That is obviously wrong, once you think it through. > > > >Defender does not drop the bare king of trumps under the > >ace. Declarer claims all tricks. > >Defender objects and he gets one trick with the high trump. > > > >Now you are saying that this trick is not transferred > >because he did not win it in actual play ? > > The trick is transferred because of doing equity. Not because of revoke-lines > No it isn't. It is also punished by a revoke penalty. Certainly. Otherwise it would be wrong to claim. Can't be right ! > > > >That is certainly wrong. > > Good argument indeed. But you can solve it by doing equity... > But we don't. We give the revoke penalty as well. Sure we do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 22:57:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 22:57:21 +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 WAA01310 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 22:57:12 +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 JAA14110 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 08:57:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <01cb01beaeb0$1de24dc0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:23 AM 6/4/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >I do not believe the ACBL intends to restrict players' rights to overbid >against weak opponents and underbid against strong opponents, even if >partner realizes that you are likely to do so. What the ACBL does expect >is that you will bid according to the methods you have disclosed, mainly >those which appear on the cc. Even deviating from those is okay if doing >so is not part of a partnership understanding. Nor do I believe that the ACBL intended to restrict players' rights in violation of L40E1. But regulations have unintended consequences, most especially consequences which manifest as the result of how regulations combine with other regulations, and they seem to have in practice done so unintentionally. >The ACBL does permit changes of system related to defenses against methods >encountered, but does not permit system changes related to defensive >measures encountered. Let me reword that principle: Initial actions cannot >be changed because of opposing defenses, but defenses can be changed >because of opposing initial actions. Which is fine, as long as "changes of system related to defenses against methods encountered" is interpreted to mean explicit counter-measures. I suspect this is what the ACBL had in mind. >The purpose of this thread was to interpret ACBL regulations, which seem >to solve the Chicken and Egg problem, and to suggest modifications that >would make them more consistent and understandable. Those who think the >regulations are illegal on their face, or are detrimental to the game, >should start another thread. In the context of explicit counter-measures, which is where we started, the ACBL regulation solves the problem just fine. But it redounds negatively in other contexts; I don't see how or why we should avoid addressing such consequences when discussing how it should be interpreted. Perhaps that part of the discussion belongs in another thread, but we have been explicitly asked by several BLML members with threaded mail readers not to change subject lines when responding directly to a message. >I see nothing in the ACBL regulations that would restrict style and >judgment, but maybe I interpret those words differently. L40E says an SO >"must not restrict style and judgment, only method," and the ACBL >regulations say "During a session of play, a system may not be varied," >and "Opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these >alterations in defenses." As a matter of interpretation rather than explicit regulation, the ACBL takes the positions that (a) a partnership's "system" is the collective sum of all of the partnership's agreements, and (b) an individual's style and judgment, when exercised with sufficient consistency to become known to his partner, becomes an implicit agreement, which is an agreement, which is therefore now a part of the partnership's system. Therefore restrictions on system apply equally either to style and judgment or to what was style and judgment until interpretation (b) above turned it into something else, depending on your point of view, but I see the difference as purely semantic. >Those are method restrictions, which are permitted by L40E. If it is >thought that "style and judgment" extend to changes of system, then L40E >is not being read correctly. Rather the opposite; the problem is that "changes of system" (viz. as a function of who your opponents are, which the ACBL prohibits) extend to "style and judgment" through the intermediate step of the interpretation of "implicit agreement". >Just play what's on your card and do not change system because of defenses >you encounter. Then you can exercise "style and judgment" to your heart's >content. ...Until your partner gains some understanding of the particular ways in which you tend to choose to exercise it, at which point, if you continue to exercise "it", i.e. your new (and inevitable) implicit agreement, you are violating the rules. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 9 23:44:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:44:58 +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 XAA01443 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:44:49 +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 JAA03295 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:57:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609094446.00707818@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 09:44:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: References: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:31 PM 6/4/99 +0100, David wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >>I just don't understand why falsecarding is different from psyching in >>the auction. Sure, in practice the frequency is different, but why >>does that mean the rules should be different? > > They aren't: their effect is. > > Read L40B. If oppos are likely to understand the meaning then it is >legal: well, oppos expect and understand false-cards: oppos do not >expect psyches, so they are treated differently. The ACBL's treatment of psychs (both legally and rhetorically) has been extremely heavy-handed ever since their official position on the subject (which Edgar Kaplan described as "it's all right to psych as long as you never do it") was set forth by Don Oakie in the ACBL Bulletin in the 1970s. The result has been the nearly total elimination of psychs in ACBL competition. I am very uncomfortable with attempts to justify the way the ACBL treats psychs by the fact that players don't expect their opponents to psych when the reality is that players don't expect their opponents to psych *specifically because* of the way the ACBL treats psychs. 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 Jun 9 23:52:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:52:04 +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 XAA01466 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:51:56 +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 10rilF-000H35-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:51:25 +0000 Message-ID: <662ffeAaCkX3EwZj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:23:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <3.0.6.32.19990608184009.007ad470@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <00a101beb1fc$7a025240$90dc7ad1@hdavis> <3.0.6.32.19990609094138.007e62f0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990609094138.007e62f0@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: >This is not a case of doing sth wrong or not. E has not won any trick. So >there is no real base to use. (except using L12) As an approach, denying a good result to an offender seems in line with the Laws. >You could say as well: >Why should S get a trick more than he could get in any normal play? But *this* is quite normal by the opponent of a revoker. -- 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 Jun 9 23:58:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:58:32 +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 XAA01487 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:58:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:55:43 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@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, 09 Jun 1999 15:55:59 +0200 To: Bridge Laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id XAA01488 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:10 09.06.99 +0200, you wrote: >Richard Bley wrote (privately to me, but since then also to >the list) > >and claimed that a trick after a claim cannot be transferred >as a "second" penalty trick, to which I replied : >> >> > >> >That is obviously wrong, once you think it through. >> > >> >Defender does not drop the bare king of trumps under the >> >ace. Declarer claims all tricks. >> >Defender objects and he gets one trick with the high trump. >> > >> >Now you are saying that this trick is not transferred >> >because he did not win it in actual play ? >> >> The trick is transferred because of doing equity. Not because of revoke-lines >> > >No it isn't. It is also punished by a revoke penalty. >Certainly. >Otherwise it would be wrong to claim. Can't be right ! It might be - if your opps revoke regularly ;-) There is another case where claiming can cost tricks. That is when you could establish a revoke by playing on. (eg: playing 3NT and the clubs are: Axx KQxxx one opp shows out in the 2nd round and you claim) of course both opps should have followed. (and both would follow again in the 3rd round) Declarer did nothing wrong (at least I cannot see anything) but loses a trick, because he dont get a one-trick penalty >But we don't. We give the revoke penalty as well. Sure we >do. ^^^^^^ Not so convincing argument. I don´t do... (at least so long as ton, kojak or grattan dont tell me sth different; even that might not convince me; well but I could live with to work against the wordig of the rules as I understand them) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 00:03:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:03:12 +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 AAA01513 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:03:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.42.176]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.06 118-133) with SMTP id <19990609140223.KHRP15544@default> for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:02:23 +0000 Message-ID: <005001beb280$90fe5e60$b02a4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> <375E426D.FEDB5D00@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:49:31 -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: Herman De Wael > "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > > > > > Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. > > > > EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam values > > in hearts. > > > > North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East passes. > > North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" which we > > would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. The TD > > gets called. > > > > Like you say, we would have ruled L25A if N states he > intended to bid 6H and the 6S card stuck. > > It now seems that N intended something else. We don't allow > the L25A change and stick NS with a L25B penalty. In this > case, we will allow a change to 6H or 7H, but with an Av- > cap. HUH? This is not the ACBL interpretation. Additionally I didn't think it was the interpretation of the WBF. Can anyone clear this up for me? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 00:09:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA01539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:09:51 +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 AAA01534 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:09:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.42.176]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.06 118-133) with SMTP id <19990609140907.KKEZ15544@default> for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:09:07 +0000 Message-ID: <006001beb281$822460a0$b02a4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu><199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990609094446.00707818@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:08:08 -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 > The ACBL's treatment of psychs (both legally and rhetorically) has been > extremely heavy-handed ever since their official position on the subject > (which Edgar Kaplan described as "it's all right to psych as long as you > never do it") was set forth by Don Oakie in the ACBL Bulletin in the 1970s. > The result has been the nearly total elimination of psychs in ACBL > competition. > > I am very uncomfortable with attempts to justify the way the ACBL treats > psychs by the fact that players don't expect their opponents to psych when > the reality is that players don't expect their opponents to psych > *specifically because* of the way the ACBL treats psychs. Having worked NABC's for 10+ years the above statement does not accurately reflect the treatment of psychic calls by the ACBL directing staff in any event. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 00:15:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:15:33 +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 AAA03772 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:15:25 +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 KAA03674 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609101453.00704d50@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:14:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA In-Reply-To: <19990605.025921.3174.1.KardWizard@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:57 AM 6/5/99 -0500, Sandy wrote: >Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for >this group: > >North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads >the ace; dummy comes >down. All players see dummy as, > >K10xx Kxxx x AKQx > >West switches to a heart, and South makes six spades. Later, East-West's >teammates cannot >understand the result, since there are two diamond losers and the opening >leader has ace-king. >East-West disagree, saying that there was only one diamond in dummy. Not >so, say their >teammates. The other team is consulted and it turns out that there were >two diamonds in North's >hand, but he had, obviously (and, it is assumed, innocently) had the >other diamond with the >king-third in hearts. > >The tournament director asks when South noticed that there were two >diamonds in dummy. >South said at the fifth trick (by which time six spades had been made). >The director suggested that >North-South concede six spades one down, since it was dummy's fault for >having mixed a >diamond with a heart. > >South does not agree, claims six spades made. The director lets the score >stand since he says he >cannot find any rule against it, but says he will bring the case to a >higher committee for a ruling. >Although he could not adjust the score to six spades one down, he found >South's action in not >conceding one down unethical and improper, a violation of the Proprieties >of the Duplicate Laws, >especially of this sentence in The Scope of the Law: "The Laws are not >designed to prevent >dishonorable practices, but rather to redress damage inadvertently done." >Do you think the >director's actions correct? I would have read out L41D and L12A1, adjusted the score 6S-1, and notified declarer's side of their right to appeal. I can imagine a scenario where I might find that the Dx mixed in with the hearts was sufficiently obvious that W's failure to notice it was "self-inflicted damage", but that isn't the case here given that "*all* players [saw] dummy as..." 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 Jun 10 00:40:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:40:47 +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 AAA03860 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:40:07 +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 10rjW7-0007fB-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:39:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:18:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A References: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> <375E426D.FEDB5D00@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <375E426D.FEDB5D00@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. >> >> EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam values >> in hearts. >> >> North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East passes. >> North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" which we >> would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. The TD >> gets called. >> > >Like you say, we would have ruled L25A if N states he >intended to bid 6H and the 6S card stuck. > >It now seems that N intended something else. We don't allow >the L25A change and stick NS with a L25B penalty. In this >case, we will allow a change to 6H or 7H, but with an Av- >cap. Perhaps we should re-read the question. N intended to bid 6H, and bid 6S by accident. She attempted to change it under L25A, and would no doubt have been allowed to but ... *Her partner* then called after the attempted change but before the ruling by the TD. -- 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 Jun 10 00:41:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:41:27 +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 AAA03868 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:41:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip64.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.64]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990609144057.CLEM16302.fep2@ip64.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:40:57 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 14:38:02 GMT Message-ID: <37667bfc.2631944@post.tele.dk> References: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> <375E426D.FEDB5D00@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <375E426D.FEDB5D00@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 Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:31:09 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: >> would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. >It now seems that N intended something else. Did you notice that S bid the 7H, not North? I understand the posting such that S bid before N had a chance to make the legal change (s)he intended - and that the problem is parallel to the other one. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 00:57:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:57:15 +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 AAA03924 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:57:08 +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 LAA16786 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:10:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609105704.00710fa4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 10:57:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: An urgent decission neede In-Reply-To: <608227803BB6D211BB130000C0BCEBDC02B422@MESSENGER> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:31 PM 6/7/99 +0300, ercank wrote: >Player (S) asked to east what does "dbl" means , and east said it is >"Peanalty Double" > >At this point if declarer draw two round of trumps , makes 2S if S breaks >3-3. But becouse of pentlty double , and seeing CA and HK at E hand , played >for going one down, since he would go many down if the S suit doesn't break >even. (Hint : NS players are experts , while E-W players are intermidiate) > >S asked for director and said that altough E explained dbl as penalty, W >does not have a penalty dbl (neither trump holding nor strength) , and >without this info it is easy for him to draw the suit and makes 2S. > >What is your decision ? I don't know -- I wasn't there -- but my decision can only depend on E-W's agreements. The only determination that is needed is whether, when E said that W's double was a penalty double, he was correctly stating his partnership agreement. Whether S believes that W's hand was appropriate for a penalty double (whether or not the TD/AC agrees with him) has no bearing whatsoever. 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 Jun 10 01:03:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:03:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03956 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:03:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from horus.cee.hw.ac.uk ([137.195.12.141] ident=root) by llyr.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 1.92 #4) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id 10rjsR-0005Eg-00; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:02:51 +0100 Received: by horus.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #96) id m10rjsN-00004CC; Wed, 9 Jun 99 16:02 BST Message-Id: Date: Wed, 9 Jun 99 16:02 BST From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 02:57 AM 6/5/99 -0500, Sandy wrote: > > >Here is something from The Bridge World that is right up the alley for > >this group: > > > >North-South reach six spades. West has the ace-king of diamonds, leads > >the ace; dummy comes > >down. All players see dummy as, > > > >K10xx Kxxx x AKQx > > > >West switches to a heart, and South makes six spades. Later, East-West's > >teammates cannot > >understand the result, since there are two diamond losers and the opening > >leader has ace-king. [lines deleted from original post] [Eric Landau] > I would have read out L41D and L12A1, adjusted the score 6S-1, and notified > declarer's side of their right to appeal. I can imagine a scenario where I > might find that the Dx mixed in with the hearts was sufficiently obvious > that W's failure to notice it was "self-inflicted damage", but that isn't > the case here given that "*all* players [saw] dummy as..." L12A1 gives the Director power to award an AAS when he judges that the Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending side. I'm not comfortable with using it in this case, since it seems to me that the defenders have themselves mainly to blame for not noticing the diamond in with the hearts (thought they do have my sympathy). I agree that the Director *does* have the power to award an AAS but doubt that the catch-all L12A1 was intended for this situation. Also relevant, IMHO, is this from the "Scope and Interpretation of the Laws" section: A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("...dummy spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. It take this to mean that a Director should remind a player who missorts dummy to be more careful but would only consider using L12A1 in two cases: repeated offenses where I judged the player was being unnecessarily careless or some evidence that the missorting was deliberate. --- "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." - Robert Wilensky, ILP 1996 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 01:44:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:44:35 +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 BAA04060 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:44:21 +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 LAA04364 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:57:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609114418.0070f6a4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:44:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination In-Reply-To: <375CE939.4A83CBF@xtra.co.nz> References: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> <005301beb156$48446be0$5dcd7ad1@hdavis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:58 PM 6/8/99 +1200, wayne wrote: >Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> The call by E was correctly alerted and explained. E simply misbid, which >> is not an infraction. It would only be an infraction if W had misexplained >> the partnership's agreement. In that case, E should summon the TD at the >> end of the auction. >> >> There would be a cause for adjustment if E took any action based on his >> partner's misexplanation, but that clearly doesn't apply here. >> >> There was no infraction. > >Indeed L75B states >"...No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he >has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are >subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such >violation, they are not entitled to redress." > >but L75D2 states >"...After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after >the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he >is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his >opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous ." > >and in this case, at the time, it was East's opinion that his partner's >explanation was erroneous. > >Does this change matters or is East just lucky that although he did not >know at the time his opinion was later proved to be in error. I think Wayne is tripping over the ambiguity of "at the time". The issue isn't what E believed when he bid 2D, but rather what he believed "at the earliest legal opportunity [to] inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous". If his belief changed in the interim, as it presumably did when partner correctly alerted and explained the actual partnership agreement, he is under no obligation to reveal what he now believes to be not his partner's erroneous explanation but his own erroneous 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 Thu Jun 10 02:19:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:19:29 +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 CAA04321 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:19:19 +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 10rl49-000Kq2-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:19:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:14:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A In-Reply-To: <37667bfc.2631944@post.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <37667bfc.2631944@post.tele.dk>, Bertel Lund Hansen writes >Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:31:09 +0200 skrev Herman De Wael: > >>> would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. > >>It now seems that N intended something else. > >Did you notice that S bid the 7H, not North? > >I understand the posting such that S bid before N had a chance to >make the legal change (s)he intended - and that the problem is >parallel to the other one. > >Bertel yep, this is the problem correctly restated. 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 Jun 10 02:19:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA04332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:19:42 +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 CAA04326 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:19:26 +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 10rl4D-0003cp-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:19:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:11:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A In-Reply-To: <375E426D.FEDB5D00@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <375E426D.FEDB5D00@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > >> Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. >> >> EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam values >> in hearts. >> >> North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East passes. >> North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" which we >> would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. The TD >> gets called. >> to clarify ... South had called before we dealt with the 6S bid. North had explained it was the wrong bid without pause for thought but after East had passed and before South had called. When I got there I saw ... 6S P 7H So South bid 7H before the call was changed, and then I was called. It was the Japanese ladies club, where the English is poor and no-one has any real understanding of the Laws, (but they want to learn and are doing very well). (FWIW the expected auction would have been ... 6H all pass) > >Like you say, we would have ruled L25A if N states he >intended to bid 6H and the 6S card stuck. Yep, I hope no-one has problems with this bit -- 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 Jun 10 03:00:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:00:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA04422 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:59:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA27769; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 11:58:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.35) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma027560; Wed Jun 9 11:57:50 1999 Received: by har-pa1-03.ix.NETCOM.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BEB277.5A625A40@har-pa1-03.ix.NETCOM.com>; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:55:30 -0400 Message-ID: <01BEB277.5A625A40@har-pa1-03.ix.NETCOM.com> From: Craig Senior To: Bridge Laws Discussion List , "'Richard F Beye'" Subject: RE: Advice from on high. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:54:17 -0400 Encoding: 66 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Having successfully psyched at an NABC and been resoundingly upheld by the director I would say this is right. But at the club and unit level and to a lesser extent at some sectionals and regionals there is a stronger anti-psych bias. Generally the more poorly trained the director, the worse the likely ruling. At some clubs you get the feeling that the director is heating the tar, geting ready to rip open the pillows, and has a call in to Ken Starr! This just reaffirms a problem we have touched on before...we need better training of the usually under or unpaid directors at the lower levels. The internet would indeed be an excellent location for this as Grattan recently suggested...not only for the ACBL but in other nations where club directors are unable for reasons of economics or logistics to attend extensive formal courses. I don't think it fair to leave the burden entirely upon DWS...there must be a few people of non Liverpudlian locale who could also make a real contribution. But this group could indeed be a fine starting point for assembling them and developing a basic education on Laws and rulings that could be available to all. Those national and zonal bridge authorities that would be willing to provide significant input and/or resources should be welcomed with open arms of course. Improving the laws should not depend only upon discussing them to death and modifying every comma to improve comprehensibility, effectiveness and equity. Teaching the people who administer and enforce the laws will prevent more bad rulings than the most successful WBF. And putting good, clear rulings at the level where tha majority of bridge players play will help to develop the next generation of tournament quality players with a right attitude toward and knowledge of the rules of the game. --- Craig Senior ---------- From: Richard F Beye[SMTP:rbeye@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 10:08 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau > The ACBL's treatment of psychs (both legally and rhetorically) has been > extremely heavy-handed ever since their official position on the subject > (which Edgar Kaplan described as "it's all right to psych as long as you > never do it") was set forth by Don Oakie in the ACBL Bulletin in the 1970s. > The result has been the nearly total elimination of psychs in ACBL > competition. > > I am very uncomfortable with attempts to justify the way the ACBL treats > psychs by the fact that players don't expect their opponents to psych when > the reality is that players don't expect their opponents to psych > *specifically because* of the way the ACBL treats psychs. Having worked NABC's for 10+ years the above statement does not accurately reflect the treatment of psychic calls by the ACBL directing staff in any event. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 03:39:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:39:57 +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 DAA04601 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:39:47 +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 NAA01707 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 13:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609133944.006fc3cc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:39:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: establishment In-Reply-To: <199906082153.RAA01729@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:53 PM 6/8/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >Side 1 says that L62A takes precedence. When East announces the revoke, >play stops, and any card exposed by West is not a play. Supporting >arguments: > >1A, time-ordering: we deal with irregularities in the order they occurred, >so we deal first with East's announcement and then with West's exposed >card. > >1B, simplicity: the TD never has to decide whether West's card is >played or not. (Suppose West claims the card was accidentally dropped >and not played at all. A partial rebuttal, of course, is that >sometimes the TD will have to decide anyway to say whether the penalty >card is major or minor.) > >Side 2 says that L63A1 and L63C take precedence. If West's play really >is a play and not a dropped card, the revoke can no longer be corrected >in spite of East's attempt. Supporting arguments: > >2A, semantics: L62A gives an obligation to the player, but L63A1 is an >incontrovertible statement of fact. Similarly, L9B2 puts obligations >on the players (they should take no action), but it doesn't say that >any action they do take is cancelled (in contrast to, for example >L68D). In fact, L9C and L11A contemplate that there might be >subsequent actions taken in violation of L9B2. > >2B, equity: the side that has committed two infractions (the revoke >and West's illegal play) should not benefit, and an established revoke >is likely to be worse for them than allowing the correction. > >Unfortunately, I find arguments on _both_ sides convincing, especially >arguments 1B and 2A. Are there others I've missed? If not, I'm afraid >I have to join David in his uncertainty about what the laws _say_. Of >course if there's an official interpretation, that would tell us what >we should _do_, should the circumstances occur. > >Probably there need to be some general rules for dealing with multiple >infractions. I don't see the difference between the two sides quite this way, but that could just mean that I'm on side 3. I'd have put it this way: Side 2 says: (a) L63A1 is straightforward; there is nothing in the laws that introduces any ambiguity in its interpretation. In particular, there is no conflict with L62A. L62A (by way of L9B2) tells us that it is illegal to play after partner announces that he has failed to follow suit when he could have done so, but L63A1 says specifically that the revoke is nevertheless established by partner's illegal play. (b) Unfortunately, however, this means that a player may become aware that he revoked before the revoke becomes established, but it may then become established under L63A1 before he corrects it. That creates a direct conflict between L62A ("A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established") and L63C ("Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected"). (c) This direct conflict creates an impasse in interpretation which cannot be dealt with until either L62A or L63C is changed to break the deadlock. Side 1 says: (a) This direct conflict is to be viewed as a more general conflict between L62, which governs non-established revokes, and L63, which governs established revokes. (b) When the revoker becomes aware of the revoke, L62 is triggered and governs from that point forward, i.e. the revoke is treated as non-established. Because L62 gets triggered first, it takes precedence over L63, which thus doesn't apply. (c) Since this avoids the impasse, it is presumably what the lawmakers intended when they wrote L62A and L63C in such a way as to make them appear to be contradictory when in reality they are not. Or, alternatively, lawmakers' intent aside, the fact that this interpretation resolves the apparent contradiction makes it the preferable interpretation on practical grounds. I hope I've succeeded in writing this so as not to give the impression that I'm agreeing with either side; I have not made up my mind, and hope that this will shape some further useful discussion. 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 Jun 10 03:48:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:48:19 +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 DAA04659 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip247.hsnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.247]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990609174755.DOTV4101.fep4@ip247.hsnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:47:55 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:47:56 GMT Message-ID: <376ea699.8354282@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@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 Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:55:59 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: >There is another case where claiming can cost tricks. That is when you >could establish a revoke by playing on. No. Law 63A3 (A revoke becomes established:): when a member of the offending side makes or acquiesces in a claim or concession ... Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 05:38:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:38:49 +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 FAA04994 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:38:40 +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 MAA31714; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:37:57 -0700 Message-Id: <199906091937.MAA31714@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:02:00 PDT." Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 12:37:45 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian Crorie wrote: > L12A1 gives the Director power to award an AAS when he judges that the > Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending side. I'm not > comfortable with using it in this case, since it seems to me that > the defenders have themselves mainly to blame for not noticing the > diamond in with the hearts (thought they do have my sympathy). This seems wrong (i.e. the blame, not the sympathy) because the way cards are laid down in dummy, suit symbols aren't necessarily exposed, except for the topmost card in the stack. So I don't think any blame can be given to the defenders for not noticing. Even if the suit symbols were completely exposed, defenders are so accustomed just to looking at the ranks of the cards in order to see what's in the dummy, that I don't see how anyone could blame them for not looking at the suit symbols that they don't need to look at 99.99999999% of the time. So when is the bridge community finally going to see the virtue of changing the background color on the minor-suit cards to light blue, so that accidents like this become impossible? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 06:39:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:39:43 +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 GAA05145 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:39:34 +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 QAA09058 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:39:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA02538 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:39:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:39:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906092039.QAA02538@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Ian D Crorie > I agree that the Director *does* have the power to award an AAS but > doubt that the catch-all L12A1 was intended for this situation. > Also relevant, IMHO, is this from the "Scope and Interpretation of > the Laws" section: > > A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("...dummy > spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct > procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. Nobody is talking about a penalty. We are talking about redressing damage. What else is L12A1 for? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 06:48:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA05184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:48:28 +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 GAA05179 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 06:48:21 +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 RAA17920 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609164753.00701434@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:47:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A In-Reply-To: <005001beb280$90fe5e60$b02a4b0c@default> References: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> <375E426D.FEDB5D00@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:49 AM 6/9/99 -0500, Richard wrote: >From: Herman De Wael > >> "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> >> > Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. >> > >> > EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam values >> > in hearts. >> > >> > North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East passes. >> > North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" which we >> > would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. The TD >> > gets called. >> >> Like you say, we would have ruled L25A if N states he >> intended to bid 6H and the 6S card stuck. >> >> It now seems that N intended something else. We don't allow >> the L25A change and stick NS with a L25B penalty. In this >> case, we will allow a change to 6H or 7H, but with an Av- >> cap. > >HUH? This is not the ACBL interpretation. Additionally I didn't think it >was the interpretation of the WBF. >Can anyone clear this up for me? While "Oh s--t" might be notoriously problematical, I don't think there can be any question that "Sorry wrong bid on the table" qualifies as an attempt to change one's call. We are told that this occurred before S bid (and that N's 6S bid was clearly inadvertent), so L25A applies and the change is allowed without penalty. What's the problem? Well, we do have a problem, but it is subsequent (thus irrelevant) to the L25 determination. The ACBL's (and, if I correctly recall a previous thread, everyone else's and/or the WBF's) interpretation is that E may now change his call in response to N's L25A change. But that means that S bid 7H when, per L25A as we all interpret it, it was E's turn to call, so if E does choose to do something other than pass 6H, N must pay the appropriate penalty under L31A2. 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 Jun 10 07:10:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:10:08 +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 HAA05224 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:10:01 +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 RAA10540 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609171001.00701f40@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:10:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <006001beb281$822460a0$b02a4b0c@default> References: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990609094446.00707818@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:08 AM 6/9/99 -0500, Richard wrote: >From: Eric Landau > >> The ACBL's treatment of psychs (both legally and rhetorically) has been >> extremely heavy-handed ever since their official position on the subject >> (which Edgar Kaplan described as "it's all right to psych as long as you >> never do it") was set forth by Don Oakie in the ACBL Bulletin in the >1970s. >> The result has been the nearly total elimination of psychs in ACBL >> competition. >> >> I am very uncomfortable with attempts to justify the way the ACBL treats >> psychs by the fact that players don't expect their opponents to psych when >> the reality is that players don't expect their opponents to psych >> *specifically because* of the way the ACBL treats psychs. > >Having worked NABC's for 10+ years the above statement does not accurately >reflect the treatment of psychic calls by the ACBL directing staff in any >event. I am shocked by this statement. The "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge", which is published by the ACBL, is unequivocal: "The American Contract Bridge League has taken steps to reduce the usage of psychic bids. Don Oakie was commissioned by the ACBL Board of Directors to state the League's position in an article in the ACBL Bulletin. His article appeared in the February 1978 issue." So there is no doubt whatsoever that the statements made by Mr. Oakie in that article represent the official position of the ACBL. Now Richard is telling us that the ACBL's own TDs have been unanimously ignoring the ACBL's officially stated position on this subject for over a decade. Fortunately for everyone's -- or at least my -- peace of mind, I have seen no evidence that suggests to me that he is correct. 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 Jun 10 07:33:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:33:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05262 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:33:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.239]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990609213518.OUOI12081.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:35:18 +1200 Message-ID: <375EDD27.5F97D4E1@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:31:19 +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: establishment, and L25A References: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article , Ed Reppert > writes > > snip > > > >We (including you, I think) had no problem if West is paying attention, and > >doesn't play on the King of Spades. I daresay we'd have no problem if the > >trick went 'round to East, he played a spade, and _then_ someone (anyone) > >pointed out he'd revoked. In the former case Law 62 applies, and in the > >latter, Law 63 takes precedence. If we agree there, it seems obvious > >(unless you can show where the rules say a play is not a play ) that we > >should agree that Law 63 takes precedence in the case under discussion. > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Ed > > > Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. > > EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam values > in hearts. > > North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East passes. > North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" which we > would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. The TD > gets called. > > Your move. Cheers John > -- My first thoughts are that it is South's turn to call, her call is legal so the 7H call stands. It is now too late for North to change calls as the first condition for a L25A correction now no longer is satisfied. Of course South's call may be based on the UI that North wanted to change calls. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 07:34:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:34:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05276 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:34:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.239]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990609213631.OUXZ12081.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:36:31 +1200 Message-ID: <375EDD70.D134FFFC@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:32:32 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination References: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: > 2D is alerted and explained as diamonds and hearts. The 2D bidder > believes that he is showing only diamonds. Subsequently documentation > is produced to verify that the explanation was correct. > > Must East call the director and explain his belief that he was just > showing diamonds? > > If East should explain his view of the 2D bid but no further damage > results from his failure to explain (2D always makes nine tricks) is a > procedural penalty warranted? > > What would be an appropriate penalty at IMPs which are converted to VPs > in a Swiss Teams qualifying match? > and Eric Landau wrote: > > I think Wayne is tripping over the ambiguity of "at the time". The issue > isn't what E believed when he bid 2D, but rather what he believed "at the > earliest legal opportunity [to] inform the opponents that, in his opinion, > his partner's explanation was erroneous". If his belief changed in the > interim, as it presumably did when partner correctly alerted and explained > the actual partnership agreement, he is under no obligation to reveal what > he now believes to be not his partner's erroneous explanation but his own > erroneous bid. Let me try and clear up my part in creating the ambiguity of this situation with a few more details. In this case East believed that his bid was correct until after the play and he had re-read the documentation which for some reason or another he had forgotten. In fact the director was called and the documentation was not produced at that time and she ruled mistaken explanation and adjusted to +110 NS. The method some version of "Swine" a run out from 1NT Dbl was standard among a number of interchangeable partnership of which this E/W were one of the most experienced pairs. West was able to produce a generic set of notes that confirmed the explanation was correct. East knew he was playing this version of "Swine" but apparently had completely forgotten the agreements over a fourth seat Dbl. This argument was put to a committee who conceded that there was no misinformation and restored the table result but presumably because of the words "...in his opinion..." in L75D2 ruled that East had violated correct procedure and fined him 4 IMPs. Has L75D2 (or any other Law) been violated here? This question is based on the wording in all of L75D2: "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous" The words "...in his opinion..." appear to me to create an ambiguity with the more emphatic wording at the beginning of the law "...partner has given a mistaken explanation...". In the case under discussion in fact there had not been a mistaken explanation so has there been an infraction? Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 07:47:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:47:45 +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 HAA05307 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 07:47:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-196-140.s140.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.196.140]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27967 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002201beb2c1$7cbac600$8cc47ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu><199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990609094446.00707818@pop.cais.com> <006001beb281$822460a0$b02a4b0c@default> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 17:46:03 -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: Richard F Beye To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 10:08 AM Subject: Re: Advice from on high. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Landau > > > The ACBL's treatment of psychs (both legally and rhetorically) has been > > extremely heavy-handed ever since their official position on the subject > > (which Edgar Kaplan described as "it's all right to psych as long as you > > never do it") was set forth by Don Oakie in the ACBL Bulletin in the > 1970s. > > The result has been the nearly total elimination of psychs in ACBL > > competition. > > > > I am very uncomfortable with attempts to justify the way the ACBL treats > > psychs by the fact that players don't expect their opponents to psych when > > the reality is that players don't expect their opponents to psych > > *specifically because* of the way the ACBL treats psychs. > > Having worked NABC's for 10+ years the above statement does not accurately > reflect the treatment of psychic calls by the ACBL directing staff in any > event. > The ACBL directing staff is not the ACBL. It wasn't all that long ago that the ACBL attempted a regulation where a player who made a psychic call was required to summon the TD and report his own psych after the hand. Fortunately, the directing staff did the appropriate thing during those reports- listened intently, looked serious during the report, and tried not to fall over laughing as they left the table. I'd be shocked to find out that anything was actually filed. Luckily, that experiment was a failure and was abandoned (in part, I hope, because the TDs wanted nothing to do with it). Nevertheless, the spirit of that kind of regulation, where a psychic bid is some kind of reportable offense, is still very much a part of the ACBL today, like it or not. High level TDs may well have a coherent way of dealing with psychic bids that is in conformance with the letter and spirit of the Laws. However, those methods have not been communicated to lower level TDs, nor has the ACBL ever voiced in an intelligible and reasonable policy about psychic bids that the ACBL membership could understand and comply with. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 08:32:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:32:27 +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 IAA05415 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:32:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-196-140.s140.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.196.140]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA18250 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:34:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008b01beb2c7$b5684c60$8cc47ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML Group" References: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> <375EDD70.D134FFFC@xtra.co.nz> Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:30:40 -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: wayne To: BLML Group Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 5:32 PM Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination [snip] > Let me try and clear up my part in creating the ambiguity of this > situation with a few more details. > > In this case East believed that his bid was correct until after the play > and he had re-read the documentation which for some reason or another he > had forgotten. > > In fact the director was called and the documentation was not produced > at that time and she ruled mistaken explanation and adjusted to +110 NS. > > The method some version of "Swine" a run out from 1NT Dbl was standard > among a number of interchangeable partnership of which this E/W were one > of the most experienced pairs. West was able to produce a generic set > of notes that confirmed the explanation was correct. East knew he was > playing this version of "Swine" but apparently had completely forgotten > the agreements over a fourth seat Dbl. > > This argument was put to a committee who conceded that there was no > misinformation and restored the table result but presumably because of > the words "...in his opinion..." in L75D2 ruled that East had violated > correct procedure and fined him 4 IMPs. > > Has L75D2 (or any other Law) been violated here? > > This question is based on the wording in all of L75D2: > > "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct > the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that > a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play > ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity > (after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play > ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents > that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous" > > The words "...in his opinion..." appear to me to create an ambiguity > with the more emphatic wording at the beginning of the law "...partner > has given a mistaken explanation...". > > In the case under discussion in fact there had not been a mistaken > explanation so has there been an infraction? > > Wayne > In this situation there is a very definite infraction. E has given the opponents misinformation about the partnership agreements. However, the MI was given after the auction, so that there is no adjustment to the contract. Also, the MI actually gave the opponents a more accurate description of the E hand than they were entitled to by Law, so they would be hard pressed to claim that the MI damaged them during play (could happen though). So, now there is an infraction, but still no adjustment. The AC was correct to restore the table result. The procedural penalty by the committee was just plain silly. E forgot his agreements, and acted in good faith on what he believed the agreements to be. IMO, the words "in his opinion" in L75D2 makes it very clear that the TD call does not depend on what the actual agreements are, but rather on what E believes the agreements are, and that E in no way violated correct procedure. If E believes that partner has made an incorrect explanation, he must call the TD at the appropriate time. He did so. Exemplary following of correct procedure. The committee gave him a PP because he forgot the agreement? Strange indeed. There is no basis in Law for this procedural penalty (although there are some in the ACBL who would have it otherwise, but that's another thread). Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 08:40:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:40:41 +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 IAA05476 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:40:32 +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, 9 Jun 1999 18:39:08 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199906091937.MAA31714@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:02:00 PDT." Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:36:13 -0400 To: Adam Beneschan From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:37 PM -0400 6/9/99, Adam Beneschan wrote: >This seems wrong (i.e. the blame, not the sympathy) because the way >cards are laid down in dummy, suit symbols aren't necessarily exposed, >except for the topmost card in the stack. So I don't think any blame >can be given to the defenders for not noticing. Even if the suit >symbols were completely exposed, defenders are so accustomed just to >looking at the ranks of the cards in order to see what's in the dummy, >that I don't see how anyone could blame them for not looking at the >suit symbols that they don't need to look at 99.99999999% of the time. > >So when is the bridge community finally going to see the virtue of >changing the background color on the minor-suit cards to light blue, >so that accidents like this become impossible? Hm. Not a bad idea. Or, I have a couple decks which display both the rank and the suit in all four corners of the card. That might work, as well. But it looks weird. :-) On the actual ruling, it appears that the appeals committee got it right, as Sandy posted in "Now - the rest of the story" on Sunday. I have this new toy. :-) It's Larry Harris' _Bridge Director's Companion_, published in 1995 (so it doesn't cover the 1997 rules, but in this case it doesn't seem to matter.) He says, on page P22 "If dummy's cards are obscured (stuck together), an adjustment to equity may apply (RTG-12, DD-14)". Those two things in the second pair of brackets are references to _Ruling the Game_, an ACBL publication, and _Duplicate Decisions_, neither of which I have at hand. Presumably one or both of those refer back to the appropriate Laws. It seems pretty clear to me that (1) the TD was way out of line, probably through ignorance, (2) Law 41D specifies the correct way for dummy to lay out his hand, (3) dummy didn't do that, (4) the Laws provide no direct penalty for that, (5) nobody disagreed as to the facts of the case, (6) the non-offending side were certainly damaged, (5) director should adjust the score to restore equity, per Law 84E. I really like the idea of an on-line course for TDs. It would certainly help _me_. :-) I don't know how I can help make it happen, but if someone wants to take it on, and has a way I can help, please feel free to ask. :-) (This after twenty years in the Navy having it drummed into me "never volunteer." :-) 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/AwUBN17tUr2UW3au93vOEQItHACfTEzNqXy+ZCWPcztQWXrPxwkmDckAoKdP AGXt+wVMu254f5UcDClTEbga =uQN+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 09:19:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:19:23 +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 JAA05550 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:19:16 +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, 9 Jun 1999 19:17:54 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <375EDD27.5F97D4E1@xtra.co.nz> References: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:15:45 -0400 To: wayne From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:31 PM -0400 6/9/99, wayne wrote: >My first thoughts are that it is South's turn to call, her call is legal >so the 7H call stands. It is now too late for North to change calls as >the first condition for a L25A correction now no longer is satisfied. > >Of course South's call may be based on the UI that North wanted to >change calls. I think you forgot Law 9B: once attention is drawn to an irregularity, the TD must be called, and no player may take any further action. 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/AwUBN172ab2UW3au93vOEQKQ5wCfYqpNB6/bWSSB3gZ2dXLdOl1LMx4An1+S wI7cxlRxOaLGN6MuQgly18fn =iitK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 09:40:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:40:17 +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 JAA05612 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:40:09 +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, 9 Jun 1999 19:38:29 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:34:15 -0400 To: "John Probst" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:06 PM -0400 6/8/99, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. > >EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam values >in hearts. > >North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East passes. >North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" which we >would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South bids 7H. The TD >gets called. > >Your move. Cheers John Guh. I've been re-thinking my position on the revoke problem, and this just adds fuel to the fire. :-) I suppose one could argue that 25A doesn't apply, because North didn't actually attempt to _change_ his call, he only called attention to his desire to do so. But that seems specious to me, at least in this case. South's bid is in violation of Law 9. I think we have to take the level of the players into account. You say in a later post that these folks are just learning the game. I would rule that North may correct his call to 6H. The auction proceeds. I would explain that one should not play after attention is drawn to an irregularity, as that violates Law 9, but that in this case there will be no penalty. If these were experienced players, I might be inclined to give a PP. This isn't quite the same situation as the revoke one. Law 25A says the player _may_ correct his call. Law 62A says revoker _must_ correct his (unestablished) revoke. Other than that, yes, they're similar. But I think the difference is significant. 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/AwUBN177PL2UW3au93vOEQKgNACgkwvOMf2u4rVZHx+X08oHh61nz7gAniHj IcdzdW7bPNbqqBvOimjprL+O =3Nd5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 09:44:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:44:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05634 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.147.164]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990609234210.FZC93999.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:42:10 +1200 Message-ID: <375EFA8F.FAD10D2C@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:36:48 +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: Advice from on high. References: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Steve Willner wrote: > >> From: Adam Beneschan > >> Since falsecarding is such an important part of Bridge, and > >> everybody knows this (or should), I doubt that the authors of L75B > >> intended it to apply to falsecarding the way it does to auctions. To > >> apply it the same way would be detrimental to the game. > > > >I just don't understand why falsecarding is different from psyching in > >the auction. Sure, in practice the frequency is different, but why > >does that mean the rules should be different? > > They aren't: their effect is. > > Read L40B. If oppos are likely to understand the meaning then it is > legal: well, oppos expect and understand false-cards: oppos do not > expect psyches, so they are treated differently. > > -- > 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 ~ Why do oppos not expect or understand psyches. They would have a better chance to if there was not so much anti-psyche propaganda promulgated. In fact on a 2nd reading L40B does not apply here. A psyche by definition is a gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length. A misstatement relative to what? Surely relative to announced partnership understanding (special or otherwise). Therefore a psyche is necessarily outside of any (special) partnership understanding and the opponents have no recourse L40A. My reading of L40B says that bids based on Partnership Understandings need to be able to be understood or disclosed *but* no such requirement is made of bids outside those understandings. Of course if opening, for example 1S on a 'random' six count meets your partnership's requirement (explicit or implicit) for that bid then you must disclose (L40B) the method *and* then this bid could be, by definition, a convention (or a light opening action) and as such could be subject to regulation (L40D) but is no longer by definition a psychic call. That is if I explain (on CC/alert and/or otherwise) that 1S is 11-15 with 5+ spades or 0-10 any shape then opening 1S on xx Qxxx Jxx Kxxx is longer a psyche but a conventional call (and maybe an illegal convention). Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 09:46:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:46:02 +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 JAA05655 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:45:55 +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 TAA28785 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:45:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906092345.TAA29824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Ed Reppert on Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:15:45 -0400) Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes: > At 5:31 PM -0400 6/9/99, wayne wrote: >> My first thoughts are that it is South's turn to call, her call is legal >> so the 7H call stands. It is now too late for North to change calls as >> the first condition for a L25A correction now no longer is satisfied. >> Of course South's call may be based on the UI that North wanted to >> change calls. > I think you forgot Law 9B: once attention is drawn to an irregularity, the > TD must be called, and no player may take any further action. But what happens if a player does take further action? It's an infraction and may subject him to PP or UI penalties, but does the action itself stand (if not withdrawn by some other rule)? Law 9B doesn't say. -- 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 Jun 10 09:56:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:56:39 +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 JAA05691 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:56:30 +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, 9 Jun 1999 19:54:49 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:55:01 -0400 To: "Grattan" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment Cc: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" , "William (Kojak) Schoder" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:35 AM -0400 6/8/99, Grattan wrote: >> David Stevenson wrote: >> When a Director or Appeals Committee reads a Law in a particular way, >> which is a reasonable reading of the Law, and is informed they are wrong >> it would be considerably more helpful to them to be given some reason as >> to why their reading is wrong rather than Grattan and Kojak say so. >++++ Well, if Kojak and I agree it has rather more authority >than any other statement that has been contributed on this list. > My statement was to back his point and set out the detail of it, >as discussed with Kaplan (when we did look at action by >offender's partner as an issue). I am content this is where the >WBF stands unless we change it in committee, something >that Kojak and I could be expected to resist. [G] ++++ Your point regarding authority is well taken. However, I'm an American, and I tend to react strongly (and negatively) to such pronouncements (though twenty years in the Navy have toned me down some. :) Sorry. Still, I agree with David - it would be much more helpful to me to understand _why_ the ruling should be this way, without an appeal to someone's personal authority. That said, I've been rethinking this whole thing, and maybe I've come around to agree with you anyway. Or almost. Let's see... Bertel suggested: >My argument is that one cannot make a play while play is >suspended (No player shall take any action ...) > >My argument furthermore is that L62 says "must". > >How about: >After E has called attention to the revoke, it must be corrected. >Then there is no revoke. L63 gets no chance to take effect. This seems reasonable. Steve Wilner wrote: >Let me see if I can prove you wrong. :-) > >Side 1 says that L62A takes precedence. [snip] >Side 2 says that L63A1 and L63C take precedence. [snip] Steve, and others, are unclear which position is correct. I have taken essentially position 2, rather than "I dunno", I think partly because, as my first shipboard CO put it "_which_ decision you make is not quite so important as that you make one." IAC, I'm willing to switch sides, as it were, if someone can explain to me why the parenthetical clause in Law 63A1 doesn't apply here "(any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke.)" Steve also suggested: >Probably there need to be some general rules for dealing with multiple >infractions. Sounds like a good idea to me. :-) 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/AwUBN17/EL2UW3au93vOEQKFYQCfRDZ584KeSidRz7uZulcFn84IilQAnRuV XsD6QEV98VxwkCm/fPuk9Xho =HyOC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 10:08:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:08:59 +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 KAA05734 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:08:50 +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 UAA21080 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA02822 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:08:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:08:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906100008.UAA02822@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > South's bid is in violation of Law 9. ... > I would explain > that one should not play after attention is drawn to an irregularity, as > that violates Law 9, but that in this case there will be no penalty. What Ed is looking for is the second sentence of L9B2, which says: "Any action taken prior to the director's arrival is cancelled, and the player may be subject to procedural penalty." Unfortunately, this sentence seems to have been omitted from my copy of the Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 11:24:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:24:45 +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 LAA05976 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:24:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh97.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.39]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA20325 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 1999 21:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990609211300.00761c28@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 21:13:00 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:02 PM 6/9/99 BST, Ian wrote: >L12A1 gives the Director power to award an AAS when he judges that the >Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending side. I'm not >comfortable with using it in this case, since it seems to me that >the defenders have themselves mainly to blame for not noticing the >diamond in with the hearts (thought they do have my sympathy). > >I agree that the Director *does* have the power to award an AAS but >doubt that the catch-all L12A1 was intended for this situation. >Also relevant, IMHO, is this from the "Scope and Interpretation of >the Laws" section: > > A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("...dummy > spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct > procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. > >It take this to mean that a Director should remind a player who >missorts dummy to be more careful but would only consider using >L12A1 in two cases: repeated offenses where I judged the player >was being unnecessarily careless or some evidence that the missorting >was deliberate. > I believe you have conflated two distinct concepts in the Laws: the power to penalize and the the power to redress damage. An adjusted score in this case is not a penalty against NS; it is merely redress of the damage suffered by EW as a result of North's irregularity. I agree that North's failure to correctly sort his cards, as required by L41D, is not generally the sort of irregularity that merits a procedural penalty. But it _is_ an irregularity (i.e., a deviation from procedures specified in the Laws), and one which damaged EW. Therefore an adjustment is appropriate, and L84E (to me, slightly more relevant than L12A1) provides the legal basis for doing so. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 11:37:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:37:50 +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 LAA06019 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:37:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip89.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.89]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990610013725.FYKC15236.fep1@ip89.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:37:25 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:37:27 GMT Message-ID: <376615f7.1640789@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, 9 Jun 1999 19:34:15 -0400 skrev Ed Reppert: >This isn't quite the same situation as the revoke one. Law 25A says the >player _may_ correct his call. ... and your ruling is to let him. >Law 62A says revoker _must_ correct his (unestablished) revoke. ... but you won't let him. That seems illogical to me. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 11:37:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA06030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:37:52 +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 LAA06020 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip89.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.89]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990610013731.FYKL15236.fep1@ip89.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:37:31 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:37:32 GMT Message-ID: <3767168c.1789092@post.tele.dk> References: <199906100008.UAA02822@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906100008.UAA02822@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, 9 Jun 1999 20:08:25 -0400 (EDT) skrev Steve Willner: >"Any action taken prior to the director's arrival is cancelled, Isn't that a bit harsh? Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 13:58:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:58:54 +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 NAA06308 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:58:44 +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, 9 Jun 1999 23:57:19 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199906092345.TAA29824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: (message from Ed Reppert on Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:15:45 -0400) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:56:32 -0400 To: David Grabiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:45 PM -0400 6/9/99, David Grabiner wrote: >But what happens if a player does take further action? It's an >infraction and may subject him to PP or UI penalties, but does the >action itself stand (if not withdrawn by some other rule)? Law 9B >doesn't say. Yeah, that's why some of us weren't sure about the revoke case, and some were sure but with two different answers. In that case, I originally felt that the illegal play _does_ affect the ruling, because Law 63 say "any play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke." I may be coming around to the other position in that case, and in this case I pretty much started out feeling that way - that 9B governs, and the illegal call is ignored, though it may draw a PP. If our first imperative is to restore equity (as best we can), then it seems to me that would best be served if, in this case, North is allowed to change her call. 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/AwUBN183572UW3au93vOEQJSaQCg/ym9lrCi1bLvNZ2ekdJfvNB/4fYAoLDo x+vAGgoC0g+5cOrc/9Qp9eAb =Xy/8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 14:09:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:09:01 +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 OAA06336 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:08:53 +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; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:07:19 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <376615f7.1640789@post.tele.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:00:47 -0400 To: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:37 PM -0400 6/9/99, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Wed, 9 Jun 1999 19:34:15 -0400 skrev Ed Reppert: > >>This isn't quite the same situation as the revoke one. Law 25A says the >>player _may_ correct his call. > >... and your ruling is to let him. > >>Law 62A says revoker _must_ correct his (unestablished) revoke. > >... but you won't let him. > >That seems illogical to me. Perhaps it is. I'm less sure of myself now than I was regarding the revoke example, though I'm still concerned about "any play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke". There doesn't seem to be a corresponding clause in the second case. 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/AwUBN186P72UW3au93vOEQI5YgCgxSMcuPzhLK2tu8aslRJbhHLEFP8AoIZc qq8h5lZME2K8TUhuRfR4CWAc =i7f2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 14:09:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA06353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:09:14 +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 OAA06335 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:08:43 +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; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:07:15 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199906100008.UAA02822@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:58:50 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:08 PM -0400 6/9/99, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Ed Reppert >> South's bid is in violation of Law 9. >... >> I would explain >> that one should not play after attention is drawn to an irregularity, as >> that violates Law 9, but that in this case there will be no penalty. > >What Ed is looking for is the second sentence of L9B2, which says: >"Any action taken prior to the director's arrival is cancelled, and the >player may be subject to procedural penalty." > >Unfortunately, this sentence seems to have been omitted from my copy of >the Laws. Mine, too. Can we blame the printer? :-) 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/AwUBN186O72UW3au93vOEQK87ACg7VsBidi0heSSqE8kmj3T5f2GWqQAoIhC Tgvik9A5XEg8izRkAAmCC+iM =N2zx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 18:26:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:26:57 +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 SAA06899 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:26:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem84.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.212] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10s0AE-0006BL-00; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:26:19 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" , "William (Kojak) Schoder" Subject: Re: establishment Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:25:16 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1157 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan --------------------------------------------------------- "We have written the laws of bridge in English as the most generally spoken language, and our achievement is a status for English as the most widely misunderstood language." Grattan Endicott, speech, June 6 1999. -ooOo--------- > From: Ed Reppert > To: Grattan > Cc: David Stevenson ; bridge-laws ; William (Kojak) Schoder > Subject: Re: establishment > Date: 10 June 1999 00:55 > > > > Your point regarding authority is well taken. However, I'm an American, and > I tend to react strongly (and negatively) to such pronouncements (though > twenty years in the Navy have toned me down some. :) Sorry. Still, I agree > with David - it would be much more helpful to me to understand _why_ the > ruling should be this way, without an appeal to someone's personal > authority. > > That said, I've been rethinking this whole thing, and maybe I've come > around to agree with you anyway. Or almost. Let's see... ++++ My points of reference are these: 1. Any recent decision of the current WBFLC 2. Any decision of the WBFLC under the Chairmanship of either Ed Theus or Edgar Kaplan that has not been superseded so far. 3. Earlier discussions with Kaplan in WBF matters, which are authoritative but do not have the seal of the WBFLC as do 1 & 2 above. 4. Personal opinion of any individual member of the current WBFLC which has the weight of that individual's position but awaits discussion, maybe, in committee. The thought process for the Director which I set out is based upon (3) and (4) above. The explanation I gave about time sequence and the fact that 62A has taken effect before West plays, and is then absolutely mandatory, is based upon (3) when Kaplan and I, in our respective then positions, were sorting out (well, he was telling me!) where we stood on a matter relating to a WBFLC appeal committee. The other point I made is that Kojak, as WBF Chief Director, would have the duty of instructing his assistant directors and informing the WBF appeal committee as to the interpretation of the law. The WBFLC might disagree with him, but only afterwards. Finally I fully understand your questioning of 'authority'; in these matters a decision as to an interpretation will often be unaccompanied by any detailed statement of reasons and no member of the committee can insert a personal view of the reasons as being 'the reasons'. We have a question to settle - does each of the Zones and the WBF itself, even maybe each NCBO, go its own separate way on the interpretation and application of the laws? That seems a prescription for chaos and conflicts with the claim of the WBF for its Laws Committee, in the Bylaws of the WBF, to have the power to interpret the laws. The current WBF President is desirous of establishing a method of producing a unified world-wide jurisprudence for appeals committees to be accepted by all. We have some way to go to achieve it but the moves are afoot. More, no doubt, in the fullness of time. One does not wish to embroil the bridge world in turmoil but I think you will realize that some recent (and earlier!) appeal decisions have been disturbing to many. Cheers Ed and my best regards, ~Grattan~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 20:02:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:02:15 +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 UAA07189 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:01:57 +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 10s1eV-000GKa-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:01:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 00:30:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A References: <1MyEBLBrmWX3Ew7a@probst.demon.co.uk> <375EDD27.5F97D4E1@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >At 5:31 PM -0400 6/9/99, wayne wrote: >>My first thoughts are that it is South's turn to call, her call is legal >>so the 7H call stands. It is now too late for North to change calls as >>the first condition for a L25A correction now no longer is satisfied. >> >>Of course South's call may be based on the UI that North wanted to >>change calls. > >I think you forgot Law 9B: once attention is drawn to an irregularity, the >TD must be called, and no player may take any further action. This is the nub of the problem and the one that preceded it: of course no player may take further action, but L9B does not say what to do when a player does take further action. -- 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 Jun 10 20:03:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:03:07 +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 UAA07199 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:02:56 +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 10s1eu-000IH2-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:02:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:57:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian D Crorie wrote: >[Eric Landau] >> I would have read out L41D and L12A1, adjusted the score 6S-1, and notified >> declarer's side of their right to appeal. I can imagine a scenario where I >> might find that the Dx mixed in with the hearts was sufficiently obvious >> that W's failure to notice it was "self-inflicted damage", but that isn't >> the case here given that "*all* players [saw] dummy as..." >L12A1 gives the Director power to award an AAS when he judges that the >Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending side. I'm not >comfortable with using it in this case, since it seems to me that >the defenders have themselves mainly to blame for not noticing the >diamond in with the hearts (thought they do have my sympathy). Your post is unsympathetic to the non-offenders. >I agree that the Director *does* have the power to award an AAS but >doubt that the catch-all L12A1 was intended for this situation. >Also relevant, IMHO, is this from the "Scope and Interpretation of >the Laws" section: > > A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("...dummy > spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct > procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. Why are we often reading here bits from the Scope as though they prove what the Laws mean? Ok, if that's the way to do it, I'll quote from the Scope: The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. What adequate remedy are you offering? >It take this to mean that a Director should remind a player who >missorts dummy to be more careful but would only consider using >L12A1 in two cases: repeated offenses where I judged the player >was being unnecessarily careless or some evidence that the missorting >was deliberate. No. I refuse to believe that L12A1 is designed not to be used when a player has gained from an infraction because the infraction is minor. There seems to be a growing idea on this list of supporting the players who commit infractions and screwing those that don't. I don't believe it is fair, and I remind you: The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. This does not support this approach either. -- 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 Jun 10 20:04:05 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA07224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:04:05 +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 UAA07190 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:02:06 +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 10s1eU-000IH4-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:01:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:54:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination References: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> <375EDD70.D134FFFC@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <375EDD70.D134FFFC@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> > I think Wayne is tripping over the ambiguity of "at the time". The issue >> isn't what E believed when he bid 2D, but rather what he believed "at the >> earliest legal opportunity [to] inform the opponents that, in his opinion, >> his partner's explanation was erroneous". If his belief changed in the >> interim, as it presumably did when partner correctly alerted and explained >> the actual partnership agreement, he is under no obligation to reveal what >> he now believes to be not his partner's erroneous explanation but his own >> erroneous bid. > >Let me try and clear up my part in creating the ambiguity of this >situation with a few more details. > >In this case East believed that his bid was correct until after the play >and he had re-read the documentation which for some reason or another he >had forgotten. > >In fact the director was called and the documentation was not produced >at that time and she ruled mistaken explanation and adjusted to +110 NS. > >The method some version of "Swine" a run out from 1NT Dbl was standard >among a number of interchangeable partnership of which this E/W were one >of the most experienced pairs. West was able to produce a generic set >of notes that confirmed the explanation was correct. East knew he was >playing this version of "Swine" but apparently had completely forgotten >the agreements over a fourth seat Dbl. > >This argument was put to a committee who conceded that there was no >misinformation and restored the table result but presumably because of >the words "...in his opinion..." in L75D2 ruled that East had violated >correct procedure and fined him 4 IMPs. > >Has L75D2 (or any other Law) been violated here? Yes. At the end of the auction the player believed that his partner had made an incorrect explanation but he failed to correct it as required. >This question is based on the wording in all of L75D2: > >"A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct >the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that >a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play >ends. After calling the Director at the earliest legal opportunity >(after the final pass, if he is to be declarer or dummy, after play >ends, if he is to be a defender), the player must inform the opponents >that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous" > >The words "...in his opinion..." appear to me to create an ambiguity >with the more emphatic wording at the beginning of the law "...partner >has given a mistaken explanation...". > >In the case under discussion in fact there had not been a mistaken >explanation so has there been an infraction? Yes. Failure to correct. Look, let us go through a hypothetical example, step by step, with you as the player. You open a 12-14 1NT, which is alerted in a jurisdiction where any range except 16-18 needs an alert. The opponents ask and are told by your partner that it is 15-17. At the end of the auction you are declarer: what do you do? [A] Partner is an idiot: he always forgets the range. Of course it is 12-14, and you will box his ears at the first opportunity. [B] Partner often gets it wrong: you are sure, well, fairly sure he is wrong this time. [C] You discussed it, and agreed [this not being the ACBL] that you would open 12-14 against all-female pairs, 15-17 otherwise. These are clearly women [or men in very short skirts!]. [D] You discussed it, and agreed [this not being the ACBL] that you would open 12-14 against Standard American pairs, 15-17 otherwise. Their CC says "Standard" but does that mean Standard American? Well, you believe so, but there seems a doubt. [E] Of course it shows 12-14! Mind you, you did have some sort of discussion at the end of the last tourney after going for 1400, but surely you did not agree to change it? [F] Damn! We changed it and he is right! Do you correct? Now, you say that you should only correct if there is an ME [mistaken explanation]: OK, how do you know? You only 'know' in [A] and [C]: do you think it is right not to correct in the other cases because you are not sure that there is an infraction? It might have been a difficult problem under earlier Law books, because while it seems right to correct in most scenarios, it could be argued [as you have done] that there is or may be no infraction. Fortunately, the Lawmakers have taken this difficult decision away from you: you are now required to correct if there was an ME in your opinion. Thus you correct in all scenarios except [F]. -- 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 Jun 10 22:49:40 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:49:40 +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 WAA08020 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:49:30 +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 JAA20435 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990610084933.007077d8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 08:49:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <002201beb2c1$7cbac600$8cc47ad1@hdavis> References: <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> <199906032257.SAA21350@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990609094446.00707818@pop.cais.com> <006001beb281$822460a0$b02a4b0c@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:46 PM 6/9/99 -0400, Hirsch wrote: >The ACBL directing staff is not the ACBL. It wasn't all that long ago that >the ACBL attempted a regulation where a player who made a psychic call was >required to summon the TD and report his own psych after the hand. >Fortunately, the directing staff did the appropriate thing during those >reports- listened intently, looked serious during the report, and tried not >to fall over laughing as they left the table. I'd be shocked to find out >that anything was actually filed. Luckily, that experiment was a failure >and was abandoned (in part, I hope, because the TDs wanted nothing to do >with it). I'm not sure which is worse for the game in the long run, a Board of Directors that makes ridiculous rules, or a staff that makes independent decisions as to which of the rules passed by the BoD they will enforce. >Nevertheless, the spirit of that kind of regulation, where a psychic bid is >some kind of reportable offense, is still very much a part of the ACBL >today, like it or not. > >High level TDs may well have a coherent way of dealing with psychic bids >that is in conformance with the letter and spirit of the Laws. However, >those methods have not been communicated to lower level TDs, nor has the >ACBL ever voiced in an intelligible and reasonable policy about psychic bids >that the ACBL membership could understand and comply with. The Oakie article is the official communication from the ACBL to its members and lower-level TDs; it is intelligible even if not reasonable. Its advice to players runs for several paragraphs, but boils down to the oft-cited "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule: "When partner has psyched once, for many sessions to come every time a similar situation arises, his partner will remember and wonder. The partner who remembers and wonders is apt to test the water before he takes the plunge of an irreversible action predicated upon his partner's call. A player who thus displays caution may not be deemed to be simply prudent. His caution stems from prior knowledge and experience with this partner and thus consitutes prima facie evidence that an implicit partnership understanding exists." Oakie himself says that, "Where psychic bids are concerned, however, the nature of the bid or call is such that the need to disclose implicit understandings has the effect of practically preventing their use." He offers specific advice to TDs and ACs on the best ways to "get" psychers in various situations: "People who employ psychic calls against less experienced players may be guilty of unsportsmanlike psyching and thereby be in violation of League regulations. People who psych against their peers may be guilty of frivolous psyching, or of having an unannounced partnership understanding. People who psych against more experience players... may lose the few good boards they get by being judged to have indulged in unsportsmanlike psyching, or to have disrupted the game." It's your basic Catch-22. Psyching is legal, but it is unsportsmanlike, and "unsportsmanlike psyching" is illegal. When Mr. Oakie, speaking officially for the ACBL, writes, "Expert players and the large majority of experienced club and tournament players seldom or never make a psychic bid," is it any wonder that we have come to regard psychs by our opponents as "unexpected"? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 10 23:05:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:05:04 +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 XAA08152 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:04:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10s4Uc-0005sm-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:03:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:44:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A References: <199906092345.TAA29824@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >If our first imperative is to restore equity (as best we can), then it >seems to me that would best be served if, in this case, North is allowed to >change her call. I think this comment shows a more general problem. While the second paragraph of the 'Scope' defines certain words I am unhappy with people quoting the first paragraph in support of some ruling or other, especially "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Of course, Ed has not directly quoted that, but his argument is similar. What the Scope does is outline what the Laws do [or are intended to do]: they are not a statement as to what TDs and ACs should do. TDs and ACs should apply the Law as it is written, allowing for various interpretations where the written law is unclear. So in the case being discussed here we are trying to decide what the Laws say. Whether our only aim, or our prime aim, is to restore equity in this specific situation [or any other] is for the Lawmakers to decide not for us. -- 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 Jun 11 01:17:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA10902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:17:41 +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 BAA10897 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:17:29 +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 LAA05050 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:17:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA03204 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:17:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906101517.LAA03204@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >"Any action taken prior to the director's arrival is cancelled, > > Isn't that a bit harsh? More than one reader was confused by my facetious message. The point is that the "second sentence of L9B2" _doesn't exist_; the laws give no clear guidance on what to do if there is additional action subsequent to an infraction. I gather that Grattan and Kojak are persuaded by the time sequence and the "must" in L62A. I wonder what they think about "may" in L25A in the parallel case. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 02:03:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:03:41 +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 CAA11231 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:03:34 +1000 (EST) From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com (4532) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pYPCa08017 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:02:07 EDT Subject: Do I Owe an Apology? 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 I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. The auction: S W N E P P 2H 4D* 4H 4S 5C DBL 5H P** P 6S AP * = Diamonds and spades ** = Clear break in tempo Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. Thanks, Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 02:40:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA11324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:40:38 +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 CAA11318 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:40:23 +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 JAA16203; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:39:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199906101639.JAA16203@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:02:07 PDT." <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:39:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I > will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek > the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. Hi, Alan, My instinct is to allow 6S, assuming West's pass is forcing. I can't tell whether West was thinking of doubling or bidding 5S (or something else), so I can't see how the slow pass demonstrably suggests any alternative over another. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 03:14:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:14:25 +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 DAA11382 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id NAA07203 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:14:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199906101714.NAA07203@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:14:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> from "AlLeBendig@aol.com" at Jun 10, 99 12:02:07 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 AlLeBendig@aol.com writes: > > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? Any agreement as to strength shown by the 4D call? Presumably the (slow) pass was forcing. Or at least that would be the claim. I disagree that it is or should be without specific agreement. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to state that the double to 5C is descriptive. Say 5=0=5=3 with a good hand and club values. Thus 5H is to me logicly passable. Any agreement as to what both the double to 5C and the pass to 5H showed or denied? On the information presented I would not permit the 6S call. At the same time, if the pass to 5H is *clearly* forcing pass to 5H is not a LA. Nor is double. Thus if they could convince me that that pass to 5H was *by agreement* forcing, I would permit a 5S call. And judge what partner would do from there. I'm not interested in what they think bridge logic makes the meaning of the pass. Way too easy to convince yourself of the bridge logic behind a call when the UI pushes you down a particular path. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 03:24:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:24:13 +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 DAA11407 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:24:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-159-31.lsan.grid.net [207.205.159.31]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA21555 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:23:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <375FF578.229CC7DD@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:27:20 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" 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: Do I Owe an Apology? References: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I > will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek > the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. I wouldn't apologize for any ruling under ACBL LA guidelines. It's close. It's certainly close enough that I'd like to have been there for the discussion with the players; is the pass forcing (I think so?) would W double with 2 hearts or require more on this specific auction? And what's the normal hand for this pair's Leaping Michaels? Tough issues. But I find the link between the tank and the 6S bid murky. This leads me to tentatively rule "No damage." Further, if I did find that the pass conveyed some piece of information, I'd have to find that it suggested 6S over 5S (surely the only two non-grand-try LAs) and there are some pieces of information (3 small hearts rather than one small heart, say) that don't suggest it. Result stands. I think. --JRM > > Thanks, > Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 03:49:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:49:43 +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 DAA11481 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:49:34 +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 AA189956964; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:49:24 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA219526963; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:49:23 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:49:05 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Do I Owe an Apology? 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 DAA11484 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Suppose there was no hesitation, E would never Pass cause W P is forcing (I will first check this). He then will bid 5S or 6S. This hesitation suggest that W consider an other option than P (X or 5S...). Does this additionnal information help E choosing between 5S or 6S ? Not totally "demonstrable" if W P is realy forcing, but I would not allow 6S, giving "le benifice du doute" to NOS...and ask AC to make the final judgment. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. The auction: S W N E P P 2H 4D* 4H 4S 5C DBL 5H P** P 6S AP * = Diamonds and spades ** = Clear break in tempo Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. Thanks, Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 03:49:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA11494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:49:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailrelay.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-121.home.net [216.216.127.121] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA11488 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:49:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from ani-bdc.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-124.home.net [216.216.127.124] (may be forged)) by mailrelay.affiliation.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18153 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:48:57 -0700 Received: by ani-bdc.affiliation.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:47:29 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jeff Goldsmith To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Do I Owe an Apology? Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 10:47:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com writes: > > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? No. I think there are two material cases: 1) E/W convince me that they had an express agreement in advance that makes West's pass forcing. 2) Otherwise. (2) is easier. If West's pass isn't forcing, then his slow pass clearly showed extra values. What are the logical alernatives to 6S? 5S, clearly is one. Pass and double are less clear. Upon very little reflection, I'd guess that pass is a logical alternative. East has described his hand pretty well thus far and West has chosen to defend undoubled. He could have J10xx xxx xxx xxx, in which case, 5H is probably going down. 5S will get doubled and go down, probably two tricks. Upon further reflection, there's no reason why West should not have that hand; with a better one, he'd've likely doubled 5H or bid. Therefore, I think pass is a LA. If pass is an LA, any other action is surely suggested by the UI over pass, so pass is enforced. (1) is harder. Even given that pass is forcing and means that West doesn't know what to do, this is a case of the hesitation's possibly providing UI anyway. I'd guess that it's 5-1 or better that West was thinking of bidding rather than doubling, so the hesitation probably suggests 6S over other actions. If pass isn't a LA, we have to evaluate double. I think double is not sensible; while some number of players would seriously consider doubling, and I don't know the player's peers, many would abjectly refuse to double (and rightly so, I think) with a heart void. 5S is surely a logical alternative and UI suggests 6S over 5S. I'd adjust back to 5S. Obviously, 6S makes, or there'd be no appeal, so the issue of a good save by N/S is probably moot. I could be talked out of the UI in this case, however, but that leads to a different problem. Is it even vaguely logical to bid 6S after a forcing pass? I don't think so; partner could have something like J10xx Axx Qx xxxx. (Would West pass with that or bid? If partner has AQ9xxx --- AJ10xx KQx, West would want to pass so that partner's primarily defensive hand can double, whereas the actual offensive hand can bid on.) Note that we are off two aces so 6S is a silly spot. If pass is definitely forcing and we don't believe there's been useful UI, then we still have to answer, "why did East bid 6S?" I think the answer is that there was UI transmitted, even if neither player quite realized it, so I'd adjust to 5S. Note that this isn't a pass-and-pull situation---those happen to the forcing passer, not his partner. For what it's worth, ought the pass be forcing? I think the answer is a clear "no," as West will much more often have a hand that wants to save against 4H but defend against five, than one that wants to help some potential borderline decision later. This case fits three of my personal FP rules: we bid 4S over their 4H, so passes are not generally forcing; everyone is bidding on shape and fit, so passes are not generally forcing; and no one knows who can make what, so passes are not forcing. ("Not generally" means that these rules don't turn off FPs if they've been turned on for some other reason (strong 2/1, strong 2-bid, etc.), but they don't turn on FPs, either.) --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 04:34:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:34:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA11649 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:34:34 +1000 (EST) From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (4543) by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pDLCa00666 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ddde6b2.24915ec9@aol.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:32:41 EDT Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? 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 After determing there was a significant hesitation and damage, the next question is whether there are logical alternatives to the one chosen. The answer to this question is surely YES. 5S is a logical alternative alternative. Pass does not appeal to me as an alternative, or an illogical one. The hand is too strong to pass. Double does not appeal to me to be a reasonable alternative, but it gets a higher score than pass, which is unreasonable. I cannot see anyone's actually passing this hand, opposite a partner who made a 4S call voluntarily the round before. Next question, in order, is whether the six spade call is resonably suggested by the hesitation. No. Looking at East's hand, one could surmise that west has some heart length and might be contemplating a double, in the face of his prior 4S call. The hesitation could well be based on a desire to slow east down with a double. I would be much more inclined to rule that the only call suggested by the hesitation is a double, and erase that call, had it been made, substituting a 5S. Nothing at all suggests bidding a slam. East took a great risk in doing that, and the presumed bad result to N-S is just the rub of the green, a fix, if it was particularly unusual. For all we know from the facts, 6S was a normal result. No one likes hesitations, but there seems to be a predisposition to rule against any good or reasonable result obtained by the hesitating side. "If it hesitates, shoot it." Hesitations do not always suggest action, and sometimes they suggest nothing at all, such as the classic 1S -2S; hesitation 3S. Does that suggest anything? The call itself suggests uncertainty. Do we know whether opener was refraining from bidding 4S without making a game try or if he was straining to push to the 3 level? No. I believe that an objective view of this hand is that east would be unreasonable to Pass with this hand, that a double could only be based upon partner's hesitation, that 5S is normal, and that 6S is a shot in the dark that he may take, not suggested by anything other than partner's legal 4S call. Craig Hemphill << I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. The auction: S W N E P P 2H 4D* 4H 4S 5C DBL 5H P** P 6S AP * = Diamonds and spades ** = Clear break in tempo Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. Thanks, Alan LeBendig >> From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 04:46:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA11705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:46:14 +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 EAA11700 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 04:46:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (actually Isis230.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de) by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (local, PP); Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:45:32 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@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: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:48:53 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <376ea699.8354282@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 17:47 09.06.99 GMT, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:55:59 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: > >>There is another case where claiming can cost tricks. That is when you >>could establish a revoke by playing on. > >No. > >Law 63A3 (A revoke becomes established:): >when a member of the offending side makes or acquiesces in a >claim or concession ... Of course the non-offending side claims... > >Bertel >-- >http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 05:23:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 05:23:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mpcmr1001.ac.com (MPCMR1001.ac.com [170.252.160.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA11881 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 05:23:43 +1000 (EST) From: christian.farwig@ac.com Received: from emehm1101.ac.com (EMEHM1101.ac.com [10.2.102.45]) by mpcmr1001.ac.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA23872 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:22:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by emehm1101.ac.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 8625678C.006AAF34 ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:25:16 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANDERSEN CONSULTING@AC FRANKFURT NET@ANDERSEN CONSULTING To: "bridge-laws" Message-ID: <8625678C.006AAE37.00@emehm1101.ac.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:21:30 +0200 Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan, I would allow the 6S-call because of two reasons: a) Once it is agreed that the pass is forcing, the hesitation gives no UI. The player cannot determine whether partner wanted to double or bid 5S. Therefore no further action is made more likely and the score should not be changed. b) Even if there would be UI, any heart-value, as suggested by partners doubt about the right bid, would count against bidding 6S and the UI would make 5S more likely. Yours, Christian Farwig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 05:33:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA11956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 05:33:07 +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 FAA11948 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 05:32:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip239.hsnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.239]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990610193235.LJMH16302.fep2@ip239.hsnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 21:32:35 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 19:32:32 GMT Message-ID: <37700531.17871477@post.tele.dk> References: <199906101517.LAA03204@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906101517.LAA03204@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 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:17:25 -0400 (EDT) skrev Steve Willner: >More than one reader was confused by my facetious message. Not I. But "Any action taken prior to the director's arrival ..." would mean starting the game all over - or maybe one had to be reborn. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 06:03:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:03:00 +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 GAA12056 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:02:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip209.hsnxr2.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.209]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990610200240.LXGU4101.fep4@ip209.hsnxr2.ras.tele.dk> for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:02:40 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:02:39 GMT Message-ID: <378f19bc.19831426@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@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 Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:48:53 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: >Of course the non-offending side claims... If the offending side acquiesces, the revoke is established. You must be thinking of the case where NOF claims, and the claim is not accepted. That would happen rather seldom, I suppose. Bertel -- http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 06:09:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:09:28 +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 GAA12084 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:09:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id PAA17491 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:10:09 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906102010.PAA17491@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:10:09 -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 > Ed Reppert wrote: > > >If our first imperative is to restore equity (as best we can), then it > >seems to me that would best be served if, in this case, North is allowed to > >change her call. > > I think this comment shows a more general problem. While the second > paragraph of the 'Scope' defines certain words I am unhappy with people > quoting the first paragraph in support of some ruling or other, > especially "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Of course, Ed has > not directly quoted that, but his argument is similar. I have, for the argument about the revoke. > What the Scope does is outline what the Laws do [or are intended to > do]: they are not a statement as to what TDs and ACs should do. TDs and > ACs should apply the Law as it is written, allowing for various > interpretations where the written law is unclear. I agree. But: 1) Where the written law is unclear, is it not reasonable to appeal to the Scope in choosing which interpretation to implement? Isn't 'an outline of what the laws are intended to do' precisely the sort of thing a TD/AC needs in those difficult cases? 2) In many case, the laws allow explicit leeway to the TD/AC. Is it not reasonable to use the Scope in deciding how to exercise that leeway? For example, L12A1 says that the director may assign an adjusted score when he _judges_ that the NOS received inadequate compensation. May not one consult the Scope in making such a judgement? > So in the case being discussed here we are trying to decide what the > Laws say. Whether our only aim, or our prime aim, is to restore equity > in this specific situation [or any other] is for the Lawmakers to decide > not for us. If, in fact, the laws in this case are contradictory or contain critical loopholes, on what basis does one choose what to do except by reference to the Scope? [In the absence of a definitive interpretation by the WBFLC--one which would presumably itself be guided by the principles in the Scope.] > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 06:11:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:11:36 +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 GAA12101 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:11:29 +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 NAA15095 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0a4801beb37c$2866e0a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:59:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I > will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek > the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. > In view of the vulnerability, the free 4S bid, and the double, the pass to 5H must be a forcing pass. I don't believe an E-W statement to that effect could be disputed. Accepting that, you might want to know if E-W play "pass and pull" as stronger than bidding an immediate 5S, which is true in Bridge World Standard. In BWS the pass would imply that West is amenable to further spade bidding, perhaps even slam, which leaves East with no LA to 6S. The hesitation would say that West was doubtful about sending this message, considering either a double or a 5S bid, so bidding 6S is actually more ethical for East than bidding 5S. If pass-and-pull is a weaker action than bidding 5S immediately, then the hesitation again suggests doubt, but what does it suggest? One can't tell. Double? Bid? Leave it up to partner? Bid six if partner bids five, pass if he doubles, bid five if he doubles? Any of these things could be going through West's mind, so the hesitation doesn't demonstrably suggest any particular action, and certainly does not suggest a 6S bid, as an immediate 5S bid would. In fact, one could argue that it suggests either a double or a 5S bid. Since the 6S bid is okay in either case, result stands. The ruling would be much more difficult if East had bid just 5S, or West had bid 5S instead of passing, after the hesitation. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 06:19:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:19:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA12154 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:19:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-242-83.s337.tnt10.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.242.83]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21565 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:18:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002001beb37e$47234ea0$53f2a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML Group" References: <375C6B1C.FC1FEBCA@xtra.co.nz> <375EDD70.D134FFFC@xtra.co.nz> Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:17:20 -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: wayne To: BLML Group Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 1999 5:32 PM Subject: Re: Obligation to Correct Explaination [Snip] > > Let me try and clear up my part in creating the ambiguity of this > situation with a few more details. > > In this case East believed that his bid was correct until after the play > and he had re-read the documentation which for some reason or another he > had forgotten. > > In fact the director was called and the documentation was not produced > at that time and she ruled mistaken explanation and adjusted to +110 NS. > > [snip] My previous comment about a procedural penalty may have been incorrect. Exactly when was the TD called? If after the auction, no PP. If E believed that W had misexplained but waited until after the auction to call the TD, then there was a procedural violation and a PP would not be unreasonable, particularly for an experienced E. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 06:20:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:20:54 +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 GAA12174 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:20:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id PAA20105 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:21:35 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906102021.PAA20105@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:21:35 -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 > L64A2 simply must refer both to actual tricks and > 'fictitious' tricks after a claim. > > It must! I quite agree, Herman. And fictitious tricks after a claim [or concession] are governed by claim/concession law, which quite explicitly gives the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] side. So we parcel out the fictitious tricks based on L68-71, and _then_ deal with the revoke. And then we find nothing whatsoever in L68-71 that tells us that we can or should give East a trick. So East has no trick, and L64A2 tells us that there is a one-trick penalty. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 06:37:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:37:59 +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 GAA12247 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:37:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id PAA24143 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:38:41 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906102038.PAA24143@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:38:41 -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 > GrantS wrote: > > > In this case, yes. In this case Side A has claimed [conceded], > >and we also give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] > >side. Further, the 'benefit of the doubt' here concerns whether to award > >a bonus revoke trick unrelated to equity, and I see no reason to strain to > >award such tricks when not necessary. > > If this were a question of equity, I would most certainly feel > >uncomfortable giving the benefit of the doubt to the side which had > >previous committed an offence. > > I really cannot see why equity comes into it. I believe that if we > have a choice between taking a trick off the offending side or the non- > offending side it seems wrong to take it away from the non-offending > side. Okay, let's see where we are. Unlike Herman, who thinks we can give declarer the two-trick bonus under L64, you think we must resort to L12. L12 says that the director may assign a score when the laws do not provide an indemnity for the particular offence. Now, in fact, the laws quite clearly _do_ provide an indemnity for the offense of revoking, and L12B would appear to bar a director from assigning a stricter penalty just because he thinks the penalty was 'unduly advantageous' to the OS. But, in fact, I am willing to pass this point by--let us assume L12A is meant to allow a TD to assign a _harsher penalty than the laws would otherwise allow_, when he judges that harsher penalty to be warranted. To what standard must the TD appeal in deciding whether the penalty is insufficient? What guidelines are there for a TD in applying L12A? I have always assumed the answer was found in the Scope, which tells us that the laws are intended primarily to promote equity and not to penalize infractions. I _only_ apply L12A when it appears to me that the laws do not provide a result that satisfies the requirement of equity--the 'Prime Directive' of the Laws, as I see them. Every time I look at this case, I see that the one-trick penalty restores equity. There was a 50% chance that declarer could have triggered a penalty for the infraction by playing out his cards a certain way, be he lost the chance to do that by _conceding_. On what grounds can we say that the penalty was not sufficient, when we agree the penalty restored equity? So that's why I keep bringing up equity. I think L71 disallows the retraction of the concession. Given the concession, I deem West to have won the 'fictitious tricks', because that's what claim law seems to tell me to do. L64A now tells me to award a one-trick penalty. I do that. L64C tells me to check to see if this has [at least] restored equity. It has. L12 tells me [under the interpretation I am granting above] to assign a stiffer penalty if that is warranted. I don't judge it to be warranted, because I only judge stiffer penalties to be warranted when giving them is necessary to restore equity. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 06:46:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:46:11 +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 GAA12281 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 06:46:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id PAA25845 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:46:52 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906102046.PAA25845@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:46:52 -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 > DWS: > >> Side A committed no infraction and did nothing wrong. > >> Side B committed an infraction, namely they revoked. > >> > >> You are giving the benefit of the doubt to Side B. Are sure you are > >> happy with this? > > > Grant: > > In this case, yes. In this case Side A has claimed [conceded], > >and we also give the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] > >side. Further, the 'benefit of the doubt' here concerns whether to award > >a bonus revoke trick unrelated to equity, and I see no reason to strain to > >award such tricks when not necessary. > > If this were a question of equity, I would most certainly feel > >uncomfortable giving the benefit of the doubt to the side which had > >previous committed an offence. > > > but I said I was conceding two tricks to West who is known to have a > spade and a club (actually he hasn't but I'm not expected to know his > pard revoked). I might lead a spade, and East (to my surprise and for a > two trick penalty) would win it. I might lead a club, and West takes > two clubs. Looks like 50/50 to me. and that is more than L84D > "resolving any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side" > requires for me to deem he led a spade. Cheers John Unfortunately, we also have L70 "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". No such passage appears in L71, but only [I am quite sure] because the writers of the laws never imagined anyone would construct a case where there were 'doubtful points' in this sense in a concession, or that if there were someone would resolve them in favor of the conceder! But, in any case, please state _all_ of L84D! "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified penalty {L64} and the award of an adjusted score {L12A}, _he attempts to restore equity_, resolving any doubtful point in favor of the non-offending side." [emphasis and brackets mine, of course] It tells us to resolve points against the OS _only after telling us that what we're supposed to be doing is restoring equity! Everyone agrees equity means one trick. Ergo, etc., Q.e.d. > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 Respectfully, -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 07:17:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:17:00 +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 HAA12432 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:16:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveh8c.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.12]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA16028 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990610171443.00764f6c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:14:43 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? In-Reply-To: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 PM 6/10/99 EDT, Alan wrote: >I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East >holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. >The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > >* = Diamonds and spades >** = Clear break in tempo > >Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I >will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek >the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. > >Thanks, >Alan LeBendig > I might like to know more about EW agreements, but without additional information (and I am not sure there is anything crucial missing anyway), I would make the following judgements: 1. Pass is not an LA, even in the ACBL, for "good" players. I would prefer to view Pass as forcing on this auction, but I know that some would not see it that way. Even so, this hand is huge for play at spades, and has only improved on the auction (voluntary 4S from partner, clubs q-bid in front of me). I think that selling to 5H is not a realistic LA. 2. If selling to 5H is unthinkable, then doubling is almost as silly. I would expect to beat 5H, certainly, although on a really bad day it could make. But I can't expect to recover the value of my spade game, if partner is unwilling to double them. For better or worse, my double of 5C has invited partner to double them in hearts, and he refused to do so. Thus defensive prospects are limited. Maybe doubling 5H is a LA, but the point is moot because 3. Among the options of 5S, 6S, and (maybe) Dbl, I don't see what partner's hesitation has suggested, beyond that which his bidding shows in its own right. Values for slam? Why? Interest in defense? Maybe. I invited partner to double and he refused, though with evident hesitation. Perhaps his hesitation suggests that doubling is right, although I think it falls short of "demonstrably". In no way does his hesitation make a 6S bid more obvious, so I rule to let the result stand. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 07:42:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA12547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:42:02 +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 HAA12541 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:41:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-242-83.s337.tnt10.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.242.83]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15070 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <008f01beb389$d81b1ea0$53f2a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:40:19 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 12:02 PM Subject: Do I Owe an Apology? > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I > will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek > the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. > > Thanks, > Alan LeBendig > I would allow the 6S call. First, the alternatives: pass, double, 5S, 6S IMO, the pass by W was forcing, so pass in not an LA. Even if pass was not forcing, that leaves us with the question of exactly what W was thinking about when he hesitated. Was W considering a penalty double or contemplating bidding on? I can't tell from this auction, and E probably couldn't either. It's certainly hard to make the argument that 6S was demonstrably suggested over other alternatives when the possibility exists that W was considering a penalty double. In that case, even 5S may be a shaky contract. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 08:26:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA12695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:26:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA12690 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:26:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA30129 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:26:07 -0800 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 14:26:07 -0800 (AKDT) From: Siegmund To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law 66 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Okay, a nice quick easy one for you. L66B: Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last played card. May declarer inspect dummy's last played card without exposing it to the defenders, or not? GRB From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 09:53:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA12928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:53:17 +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 JAA12923 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:53:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from p87s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.136] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10sEcx-0008UZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:52:56 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Law 66 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:58:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01beb39d$1ba9c1e0$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: Siegmund To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 11:48 PM Subject: Law 66 > >Okay, a nice quick easy one for you. > >L66B: Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender >may inspect, but not expose, his own last played card. > >May declarer inspect dummy's last played card without exposing it to the >defenders, or not? IMO No. At no time are we told that dummy's cards become declarer's cards. Law41C "Dummys hand is spread. Law41D "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. Re.. Law66B it is interesting to note that dummy is not allowed to examine the face of his last quitted card, for example, to check where the lead is, to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand. If declarer says "which hand am I in?" Dummy may have to say "I don't know." Anne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 10:07:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:07:17 +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 KAA12990 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA04221 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:07:10 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990611100726.00a5eea0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:07:26 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: ADVICE FR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A few years ago I related a hypothetical story to an ACBL national director. It went something like: Pair A is in auction X against pair B and player A makes a call that was deceptive [psychic] while his partner does everything normal. The outcome was a good score for pair A. A complaint is lodged with the director who rules the result stands. A couple of days later the same auction X occurred, but it turns out that Player A has a similar hand as the first auction. Again the outcome was a good score for pair A. [Also curious is that] it is against the same opponents. A complaint is lodged with the director Question: what is the ruling? His response was that Player A can make the bid. Question: will the score be adjusted? His response was that Player A can make the bid. However, his body language suggested that, yes he can make the bid, but by doing so he is subject to ethics violation. The director outright refused to say anything about what the real ACBL policy was, what a likely ruling would be or explain how a ruling would be approached. In real life. The story happened. The second board resulted in a very heavy handed adjustment against Pair A. I do not remember if there was a retroactive adjustment on the first hand. Roger Pewick O>----- Original Message ----- O>From: Eric Landau O>> The ACBL's treatment of psychs (both legally and rhetorically) has O>been > extremely heavy-handed ever since their official position on the O>subject > (which Edgar Kaplan described as "it's all right to psych as O>long as you > never do it") was set forth by Don Oakie in the ACBL O>Bulletin in the 1970s. O>> The result has been the nearly total elimination of psychs in ACBL O>> competition. O>> O>> I am very uncomfortable with attempts to justify the way the ACBL O>treats > psychs by the fact that players don't expect their opponents to O>psych when > the reality is that players don't expect their opponents to O>psych > *specifically because* of the way the ACBL treats psychs. O>Having worked NABC's for 10+ years the above statement does not O>accurately reflect the treatment of psychic calls by the ACBL directing O>staff in any event. O> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 10:07:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:07:38 +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 KAA13004 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:07:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA04263 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:07:30 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990611100746.00a4e530@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:07:47 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: ESTABLISH Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk O>At 08:49 AM 6/9/99 -0500, Richard wrote: O>>From: Herman De Wael O>> O>>> "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: O>>> O>>> > Now to move to a related problem with the auction I ruled on today. O>>> > O>>> > EW have pre-empted heavily in spades, NS are known to have slam O>values >> > in hearts. O>>> > O>>> > North bids 6S (a clear L25A applicable inadvertent call). East O>passes. O>>> > North makes her L25A statement "Sorry wrong bid on the table" O>which we >> > would have accepted and allowed a 6H substitution. South O>bids 7H. The TD >> > gets called. O>>> O>>> Like you say, we would have ruled L25A if N states he O>>> intended to bid 6H and the 6S card stuck. O>>> O>>> It now seems that N intended something else. We don't allow O>>> the L25A change and stick NS with a L25B penalty. In this O>>> case, we will allow a change to 6H or 7H, but with an Av- O>>> cap. O>> O>>HUH? This is not the ACBL interpretation. Additionally I didn't think O>it >was the interpretation of the WBF. O>>Can anyone clear this up for me? O>While "Oh s--t" might be notoriously problematical, I don't think there O>can be any question that "Sorry wrong bid on the table" qualifies as an O>attempt to change one's call. We are told that this occurred before S O>bid (and that N's 6S bid was clearly inadvertent), so L25A applies and O>the change is allowed without penalty. What's the problem? O>Well, we do have a problem, but it is subsequent (thus irrelevant) to Law 25A places conditions. Even if it was attempted to change BEFORE partner called, L25A no longer applies once partner calls. O>the L25 determination. The ACBL's (and, if I correctly recall a O>previous thread, everyone else's and/or the WBF's) interpretation is O>that E may now change his call in response to N's L25A change. But that O>means that S bid 7H when, per L25A as we all interpret it, it was E's O>turn to call, so if E does choose to do something other than pass 6H, N O>must pay the appropriate penalty under L31A2. O>Eric Landau elandau@cais.com O>APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org O>1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 O>Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 O> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 10:49:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:49:58 +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 KAA13140 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:49:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10sFVl-0007DW-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:49:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:02:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip >> >>I think you forgot Law 9B: once attention is drawn to an irregularity, the >>TD must be called, and no player may take any further action. > > This is the nub of the problem and the one that preceded it: of course >no player may take further action, but L9B does not say what to do when >a player does take further action. > the game that is being played after the infraction is not bridge, I would suggest. Which means that we ignore the further actions until the original infraction is resolved, and then, since the game of bridge has been restored, we resolve the subsequent infractions. (be it card played or call made) - and I must confess is the strongest argument I have found for resolving multiple infractions in the order in which they occur 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 Jun 11 10:50:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA13153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:50:01 +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 KAA13141 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:49:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sFVl-000Ley-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:49:33 +0000 Message-ID: <9P02h+BOjFY3EwSM@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:31:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your > opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs > experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful > play). I > will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I > would seek > the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. East's double of 5C suggests to me that he has at least enough to express contempt for the call of 5H that will certainly come next. This, in an expert game, (I would be thinking of the YC bearpit) makes West's pass 100% forcing. Thus Pass is not an LA for East. Now to what are East's options? I think they are double, 5S and 6S. Since partner hasn't doubled he wants to know do I have extras for my auction to date. Now since I am void in their suit double is not an LA either. In particular I will be asking myself would partner make a forcing pass on an aceless hand. Nope. Could he have the Ace of hearts and no other Ace? Nope, he'd have doubled. Does he have a black Ace? Yep. Does he need extra values? Nope because he doesn't know how good your intermediates are given you bid 4D. So first question is, what is the minimum requirement for the original 4D bid. If the player is minimum for this action then I adjust to 5S, if non minimum I'm allowing 6S. If in doubt (and they'll need to convince me of their system) back to 5S. 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 Jun 11 13:14:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:14:04 +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 NAA13520 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:13:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei6g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.208]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA04475 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:13:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990610231145.0076789c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:11:45 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? In-Reply-To: <199906101714.NAA07203@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:14 PM 6/10/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Presumably the (slow) pass was forcing. Or at least that would be >the claim. I disagree that it is or should be without specific >agreement. > >It seems to me perfectly reasonable to state that the double to >5C is descriptive. Say 5=0=5=3 with a good hand and club values. >Thus 5H is to me logicly passable. > >Any agreement as to what both the double to 5C and the pass to >5H showed or denied? > >On the information presented I would not permit the 6S call. > >At the same time, if the pass to 5H is *clearly* forcing pass to >5H is not a LA. Nor is double. > >Thus if they could convince me that that pass to 5H was *by agreement* >forcing, I would permit a 5S call. And judge what partner would >do from there. > I don't quite get this. If the pass is forcing, then only 5S and 6S are (presumably) even under consideration. How does the hesitation _demonstrably_ suggest 6 over 5? If anything, it suggests 5 over 6, as the hesitator is apt either to be contemplating a penalty double (indicating heart wastage) or doubting whether he's good enough to offer a forcing pass, which is in general stronger than a double. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 13:46:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:46:46 +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 NAA13641 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:46:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10sIGt-000JGp-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:46:24 +0000 Message-ID: <0tnUZKCAXHY3EwxO@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:34:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: ESTABLISH In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990611100746.00a4e530@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.32.19990611100746.00a4e530@acsys.anu.edu.au>, "by way of Markus Buchhorn " writes snip explanation of partner who has stated she wishes to chnge her call under L25A, (RHO having called), and then bidding before 1) the change was made 2) the director was called > >Law 25A places conditions. Even if it was attempted to change BEFORE >partner called, L25A no longer applies once partner calls. > and how do we reconcile this with Law 9B2? -- 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 Jun 11 13:54:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA13692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:54:12 +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 NAA13687 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:54:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivei6g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.72.208]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA13861 for ; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990610235152.00767904@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:51:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: RE: Do I Owe an Apology? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:47 AM 6/10/99 -0700, Jeff wrote: >No. I think there are two material cases: >1) E/W convince me that they had an express agreement in advance > that makes West's pass forcing. >2) Otherwise. > How about 3) Indeterminate? Opinions in this forum have been more or less evenly split about whether pass is forcing here. I think that it is difficult to make the case for a non-forcing pass, simply because of East's double of 5C. What is the point of such a bid in the first place if not to establish in advance a forcing sequence? Obviously the opponents are not planning to play 5C, so it isn't for penalty. And since East is on lead against the presumptive 5H contract, it isn't lead-directing. Ron argues that it should show exactly this hand, i.e., 5053 with extras. But why on earth would you choose to paint a precise picture of your hand pattern for declarer if you were planning to sell to 5H? Perhaps it invites partner to double 5H with values in that suit, but I really don't see how it can be read as making room for 5H undoubled. This seems perfectly clear to me, but obviously others see it differently. What does this tell us? That unless Pass is forcing by explicit agreement, West's most likely problem is trying to decide whether it is or isn't. And if that's the case, then West's hesitation does not "clearly show extra values" as Jeff claims. Consider the hand Jeff offers, for example: JTxx xxx,xxx xxx. Leaving aside the issue of what brand of brainless twit would volunteer a 4-level contract with that hand, doesn't it strike you as problematic to make a forcing pass, showing a willingness to compete at the 5-level, after you have already bid rather more vigorously than your cards can really justify? Mightn't you find yourself sweating just a bit with this pile, worrying whether partner might expect a lot more for 4S followed by a "forcing" pass? One nice feature of this problem is that it makes a good case for the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". It was less a substantive alteration than a change of emphasis, stressing the importance of this second test in UI analysis. Nobody has provided a coherent argument for why this hesitation demonstrably suggests a 6S bid. Jeff at least gives it a mention, but the "clearly shows extra values" line doesn't bear close analysis, IMO. If the pass were unambiguously non-forcing, I could accept this reasoning. But it isn't, regardless of how various individuals might choose to interpret it either at the table or in analysis mode. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 14:14:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:14:59 +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 OAA13770 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:14:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from accordion (acsys-temp1.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.65]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA06207 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:14:53 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19990611141509.009945b0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:15:09 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: DO I OWE AN A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Al, It appears there are several things to consider in this auction. First is the meaning of 5CX. Supposedly it suggests a hand that has defense to 5H that may score better than 4S or 5S whether those contracts make or not. The double accomplishes little positive for overcalller than that. But, it accomplishes some things negative. For instance, the only valuable cards partner may contribute are the black aces, the club jack/ doubleton club, the diamond queen/ doubleton diamond with extra length in spades. 5CX precludes finding anything about those assets. In fact 4D made it difficult to find out anything useful. Second, if the hand was interested in slam why did he not rebid 5H to suggest second round club control and that any working controls or fitting cards would be useful. Third, if he was going to bid 6S no matter what partner did why not bid it straight over 5C. could it be it was partner's hesitation that made it likely that 6S would be successful? This is the most important of the issues and I can not resolve it in favor of overcaller. Fourth, what was responder's problem? 5CX suggests that the partnership is better off defending. Why? Maybe there are too many losers. But what if responder's fitting cards and controls are working- then 5HX may not be enough when 5S makes, but maybe 5S is in danger. The huddle clarifies that the partnership's assets are working and therefore suggests bidding 6S over the LA of double and 5S. Therefore, an infraction occurred and an adjustment is called for if the other side was damaged. The double of 5C suggests that he was willing to sit for partner doubling 5H. It is not clear on the auction that 5S will make [opener may be void in clubs or they may have 2 black aces and a cashing diamond; or ace of clubs ruff a club] except for the huddle. It would appear that L12C2 would require that the least favorable of the probable results would be awarded from 5S=6 and 5HX. Roger Pewick AL>I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. AL>East holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs AL>experienced. The auction: AL> S W N E AL> P P 2H 4D* AL> 4H 4S 5C DBL AL> 5H P** P 6S AL> AP AL>* = Diamonds and spades AL>** = Clear break in tempo AL>Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). AL>I will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I AL>would seek the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. AL>Thanks, AL>Alan LeBendig AL> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 14:41:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA13831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:41:18 +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 OAA13826 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:41:10 +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, 11 Jun 1999 00:39:40 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:15:46 -0400 To: Jeff Goldsmith From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: Do I Owe an Apology? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:47 PM -0400 6/10/99, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > If pass is an LA, any >other >action is surely suggested by the UI over pass, so pass is enforced. You posit a hand in which _five_ spades cannot make, and then say that a slow pass suggests partner bid _six_ spades? I don't understand this. Can you elucidate? 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/AwUBN2CTVb2UW3au93vOEQIf4ACgkAsuMG0rdI/PrQ/CPGvVNwfiJbgAn3z/ ndHsW50Epcrs9LkV72zIES0G =lYYa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 17:38:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:38:52 +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 RAA14285 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:38:43 +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 HAA22580 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 07:38:01 GMT Message-ID: <3760BCDA.2AE8A51D@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:38:02 +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: Do I Owe an Apology? References: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com a écrit : > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I > will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek > the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. > > Thanks, > Alan LeBendig Starting with the first question to answer in cases of this sort, I would say: no UI. I would be unable to explain which features were suggested by West's hesitation and I would have been most surprised if he could have made a quick bid in this very intricate situation. I think he has a hard work to understand the meaning of all previous bids, try to figure which hand each player could hold, which meaning could be given to each of his possible bids (pass, double, 5S...) and determine if he lies in a forcing pass situation. In short, I think any hand West could hold would justify his hesitating, and I would allow result to stand. However it would be easier to form an opinion after an hearing of players and an appropriate set of questions, information which the AC got for sure to take a decision which should be fairer than one made "far from playing field". 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 Jun 11 17:51:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:51:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from eris.iag.net (mailhub.iag.net [204.27.210.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA14325 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:51:10 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:51:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 22963 invoked from network); 11 Jun 1999 07:50:56 -0000 Received: from pm02-079.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.79) by eris.iag.net with SMTP; 11 Jun 1999 07:50:56 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990611034909.33c7b988@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: DO I OWE AN A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:15 PM 6/11/99 +1000, you wrote: > >Al, > >It appears there are several things to consider in this auction. > >First is the meaning of 5CX. Supposedly it suggests a hand that has defense >to 5H that may score better than 4S or 5S whether those contracts make or >not. The double accomplishes little positive for overcalller than that. >But, it accomplishes some things negative. For instance, the only valuable >cards partner may contribute are the black aces, the club jack/ doubleton >club, the diamond queen/ doubleton diamond with extra length in spades. 5CX >precludes finding anything about those assets. In fact 4D made it difficult >to find out anything useful. What 4di does or not have nothing with the case to do IMO. > >Second, if the hand was interested in slam why did he not rebid 5H to >suggest second round club control and that any working controls or fitting >cards would be useful. > >Third, if he was going to bid 6S no matter what partner did why not bid it >straight over 5C. could it be it was partner's hesitation that made it >likely that 6S would be successful? This is the most important of the >issues and I can not resolve it in favor of overcaller. Somehow i get a feeeling that if it hesitates shoot it. > The hesitation have infact made 6sp LESS attractive >Fourth, what was responder's problem? 5CX suggests that the partnership is >better off defending. On this we do not have enough information to say that X of 5cl suggests i am willing to defend 5h, It can very well be an attempt to show the Cl ctrl on the road and let pd decide what to do since there will be no way of finding the slam if Pd is looking into xx in club and a pd that couldnt X 5cl to show ctrl in the suit. Why? Maybe there are too many losers. But what if >responder's fitting cards and controls are working- then 5HX may not be >enough when 5S makes, but maybe 5S is in danger. > >The huddle clarifies that the partnership's assets are working and therefore >suggests bidding 6S over the LA of double and 5S. Therefore, an infraction >occurred and an adjustment is called for if the other side was damaged. > This is the famous if it huddles shoot it and shoot it quick before it starts moving again. The hesitation usually shows doubt about if pass is the right action. Can agree to some extent that when it huddles it is normally with the stronger alternative of several possible alternatives but have been found on several occasion to not allow redress since you dont have anything suggested over another and as a fact of that no damage and no redress and that gives results stands. >The double of 5C suggests that he was willing to sit for partner doubling >5H. I can easily thnk of it as showing i ctrl clubs and got interested after your freebid of 4sp >It is not clear on the auction that 5S will make [opener may be void in >clubs or they may have 2 black aces and a cashing diamond; or ace of clubs >ruff a club] except for the huddle. It would appear that L12C2 would >require that the least favorable of the probable results would be awarded >from 5S=6 and 5HX. Not clear that 5sp will make and 6sp is the suggested LA????? where is bridge going in the 2000s ? Robert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 19:00:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:39 +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 TAA14545 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sNAL-000Ceo-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:59:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:51:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199906102021.PAA20105@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906102021.PAA20105@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >> L64A2 simply must refer both to actual tricks and >> 'fictitious' tricks after a claim. >> >> It must! > > I quite agree, Herman. And fictitious tricks after a claim [or >concession] are governed by claim/concession law, which quite explicitly >gives the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] side. > So we parcel out the fictitious tricks based on L68-71, and _then_ >deal with the revoke. And then we find nothing whatsoever in L68-71 that >tells us that we can or should give East a trick. So East has no trick, >and L64A2 tells us that there is a one-trick penalty. Please quote the part of L68-71 that says we should not give East a trick. -- 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 Jun 11 19:00:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:30 +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 TAA14528 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sNAL-000Cen-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:59:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:49:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A References: <199906102010.PAA17491@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906102010.PAA17491@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >> Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >If our first imperative is to restore equity (as best we can), then it >> >seems to me that would best be served if, in this case, North is allowed to >> >change her call. >> >> I think this comment shows a more general problem. While the second >> paragraph of the 'Scope' defines certain words I am unhappy with people >> quoting the first paragraph in support of some ruling or other, >> especially "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for >> irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." Of course, Ed has >> not directly quoted that, but his argument is similar. > > I have, for the argument about the revoke. > >> What the Scope does is outline what the Laws do [or are intended to >> do]: they are not a statement as to what TDs and ACs should do. TDs and >> ACs should apply the Law as it is written, allowing for various >> interpretations where the written law is unclear. > > I agree. But: > 1) Where the written law is unclear, is it not reasonable to >appeal to the Scope in choosing which interpretation to implement? Isn't >'an outline of what the laws are intended to do' precisely the sort of >thing a TD/AC needs in those difficult cases? No. I just do not see it. People have been claiming the Scope as a reason for not giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side when their opponent has revoked - and yet the revoke Law includes penalty tricks which are not in the same direction as the Scope. > 2) In many case, the laws allow explicit leeway to the TD/AC. Is >it not reasonable to use the Scope in deciding how to exercise that >leeway? For example, L12A1 says that the director may assign an adjusted >score when he _judges_ that the NOS received inadequate compensation. May >not one consult the Scope in making such a judgement? It is difficult to see how the Scope affects this. What people have been doing is to quote the Scope as a reason not to penalise. L12A1 is not a penalising Law. Actually, you have given me a very good example here of why this using the Scope is unnecessary as well as unhelpful. L12A1 tells the TD exactly what to do: the Scope merely tells the TD why L12A1 is written the way it is. It certainly does not help in interpreting L12A1 - except perhaps for the people who have not read L12A1 and assume it means penalising [there have been a couple of people recently] but why should such people read the Scope any better? >> So in the case being discussed here we are trying to decide what the >> Laws say. Whether our only aim, or our prime aim, is to restore equity >> in this specific situation [or any other] is for the Lawmakers to decide >> not for us. > > If, in fact, the laws in this case are contradictory or contain >critical loopholes, on what basis does one choose what to do except by >reference to the Scope? [In the absence of a definitive interpretation by >the WBFLC--one which would presumably itself be guided by the principles >in the Scope.] 1 Discussion to find the solution. 2 Interpretation from NCBOs. 3 Training of TDs. 4 Regulations from SOs. 5 Opinions from WBFLC members. Need I go on? Instead of which, you want to use a statement as to a general approach to explain a Law. I don't think it is necessary, desirable or effective. Ok, I know there are people who view our discussions on this list as merely an interlude before someone tells us what Kaplan thinks. I think such people are not getting much from this list. I think we would do better to follow people like Steve Willner and Marvin French and John Probst and Herman de Wael others like that and try to find solutions from reading the Laws and quoting our NCBOs and comparing opinions until we get somewhere. To decide whether we are giving one penalty trick or two based on how near it is to some vague statement in the Scope rather than looking at the actual Laws is not the way to go. -- 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 Jun 11 19:00:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:21 +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 TAA14527 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sNAL-000Ceq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:59:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:00:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 66 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Siegmund wrote: > >Okay, a nice quick easy one for you. > >L66B: Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender >may inspect, but not expose, his own last played card. > >May declarer inspect dummy's last played card without exposing it to the >defenders, or not? No, it is not his card. -- 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 Jun 11 19:00:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:22 +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 TAA14526 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sNAL-000Cep-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:59:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:56:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199906102046.PAA25845@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906102046.PAA25845@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: > Unfortunately, we also have L70 "any doubtful points shall be >resolved against the claimer". No such passage appears in L71, but only >[I am quite sure] because the writers of the laws never imagined anyone >would construct a case where there were 'doubtful points' in this sense in >a concession, or that if there were someone would resolve them in favor of >the conceder! > But, in any case, please state _all_ of L84D! > > "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified >penalty {L64} and the award of an adjusted score {L12A}, _he attempts to >restore equity_, resolving any doubtful point in favor of the >non-offending side." > [emphasis and brackets mine, of course] Oh, thanks. I knew someone would destroy your argument sometime. The offending side is the one that revoked. Thus we resolve any doubtful point [which card would be played first by the player conceding] in favour of the NOS: thus it is a two-trick revoke. QED. -- 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 Jun 11 19:39:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:39:36 +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 TAA14645 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:39:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-79.uunet.be [194.7.145.79]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA27340 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:39:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3760D03D.FC420FC6@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:00:45 +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: Concession after revoke References: <199906102021.PAA20105@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > L64A2 simply must refer both to actual tricks and > > 'fictitious' tricks after a claim. > > > > It must! > > I quite agree, Herman. And fictitious tricks after a claim [or > concession] are governed by claim/concession law, which quite explicitly > gives the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] side. > So we parcel out the fictitious tricks based on L68-71, and _then_ > deal with the revoke. And then we find nothing whatsoever in L68-71 that > tells us that we can or should give East a trick. So East has no trick, > and L64A2 tells us that there is a one-trick penalty. > > > Herman DE WAEL > Grant has a correct grasp of the situation. The only problem that remains is how to determine what fictitious tricks have been made. Many of us think that this should be resolved against revoker. We believe that this is not covered in the Laws, but that it is a logical thing to do. Grant OTOH maintains that this is covered by Law 70A : "In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the Claimer." I have three remarks : - "contested claim". In the case at hand, the claim is not contested. We are ruling on a revoke. I don't believe L70A is applicable. - "equitably to both sides". We are determining who should get the 13th trick, and we must do this as equitably as possible. Surely giving it to claimer is more equitable that giving it to revoker. Especially since I maintain that claimer did not do anything wrong. - "doubtful points". Is the phrase that Grant refers to. It is in doubt whether or not East will make a trick. But there is no doubt that the trick will go to east-west. We cannot NOT resolve the doubt as to who gains the trick (in the claim) against claimer. There is no doubt, he will not make this trick. There is doubt as to whether a one- or a two-trick penalty is applicable, but saying that this is a doubtful point as to L70A, is IMHO a stretch of the imagination. I can only maintain that L70A does not resolve the dilemma and that the Laws are completely silent on this issue. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 11 21:55:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA15013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:55:53 +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 VAA15008 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:55:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10sPtu-000F5g-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 11:55:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:52:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A References: <3.0.32.19990611141509.009945b0@acsys.anu.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19990611141509.009945b0@acsys.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk by way of Markus Buchhorn wrote: >First is the meaning of 5CX. This made me laugh. At first sight, ... -- 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 Jun 11 22:22:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA15113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:22:29 +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 WAA15108 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:22:20 +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 IAA12477 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:35:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990611082227.0070d2e4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 08:22:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? In-Reply-To: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:02 PM 6/10/99 EDT, AlLeBendig wrote: >I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East >holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. >The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > >* = Diamonds and spades >** = Clear break in tempo > >Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I >will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek >the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. I would allow it. I don't see pass as an LA. Double certainly isn't. So E's LAs are 5S and 6S. W's huddle, most likely thinking about doubling 5H, if anything suggests either wasted values in H or a bad hand that wants to discourage E from bidding on, which would suggest 5S over 6S. So I rule that the "demonstrably suggested" test for an adjustment fails. 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 Jun 12 00:37:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:37:58 +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 AAA17965 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:37:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA16225 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:37:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199906111437.KAA16225@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:37:37 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19990611034909.33c7b988@pop3.iag.net> from "Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren" at Jun 11, 99 05:51:10 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 Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren writes: > > Somehow i get a feeeling that if it hesitates shoot it. Here yes. In my opinion they are using OBM to cope with an unfamiliar situation. I'd bet they have *no* agrements other than the general meaning of the 4D call. Prompt 4S followed by slow pass. What does pass show? And why should it be forcing? > The hesitation have infact made 6sp LESS attractive Nonsense. The hesitation strongly suggests that pass is not the answer. And I've yet to see anything remotely convincing that says to me that pass is not a LA. I know that playing with a partner I trusted, I would not only consider pass, I'd do it. Bridge logic tells me that me that partner is captain and my hand is in no way unusual for the auction. Further, the initial description specifies experienced players. If they're even a semi-regular partnership, partner will have a pretty good feel for partner's hand type. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 01:35:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:35:11 +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 BAA18280 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:35:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id KAA17497 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:35:26 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906111535.KAA17497@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:35:26 -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 > > Unfortunately, we also have L70 "any doubtful points shall be > >resolved against the claimer". No such passage appears in L71, but only > >[I am quite sure] because the writers of the laws never imagined anyone > >would construct a case where there were 'doubtful points' in this sense in > >a concession, or that if there were someone would resolve them in favor of > >the conceder! > > But, in any case, please state _all_ of L84D! > > > > "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified > >penalty {L64} and the award of an adjusted score {L12A}, _he attempts to > >restore equity_, resolving any doubtful point in favor of the > >non-offending side." > > [emphasis and brackets mine, of course] > > Oh, thanks. I knew someone would destroy your argument sometime. > > The offending side is the one that revoked. Thus we resolve any > doubtful point [which card would be played first by the player > conceding] in favour of the NOS: thus it is a two-trick revoke. Sigh. David, is that really how you read this passage? Do you really think that the part about choosing between a specified penalty and an adjusted score, and the part about 'attempts to restore equity', are not relevant to this case? I guess this is the end of our disagreement. I think this law is clear, and that we are to resolve doubtful points in favor of the NOS _while we are restoring equity_. There is no question that one trick restores equity--that was, in fact, stipulated in the original message. So the first two parts of the law tell us to give the one-trick penalty, and the final part merely tells us how to rule when there are doubts about what constitutes equity. If you honestly tell me that this is not how you read this law, I am quite sure that neither of us will convince the other. > QED. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Respectfully submitted, -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 01:44:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:44:29 +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 BAA18309 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:44:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id KAA19420 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:45:11 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906111545.KAA19420@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:45:11 -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 > wrote: > >> L64A2 simply must refer both to actual tricks and > >> 'fictitious' tricks after a claim. > >> > >> It must! > > > > I quite agree, Herman. And fictitious tricks after a claim [or > >concession] are governed by claim/concession law, which quite explicitly > >gives the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] side. > > So we parcel out the fictitious tricks based on L68-71, and _then_ > >deal with the revoke. And then we find nothing whatsoever in L68-71 that > >tells us that we can or should give East a trick. So East has no trick, > >and L64A2 tells us that there is a one-trick penalty. > > Please quote the part of L68-71 that says we should not give East a > trick. Well, if you are disputing the idea that in evaluating a claim we are to assign fictitious tricks, obviously we'll have a longer debate about that one. [And, for once, Herman will be on my side. :)] But if you mean 'granting the idea that we assign fictitious tricks, what passage tells us not to give them to East', my answers are: L70A "In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." [I am aware of the fact that this applies to _claims_ and not _concessions_, but I would be shocked if this were for any reason other than that the writers of the law thought no one would ever claim that we should resolve a doubtful point in favor of a conceder!] L71C "if the player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards...." He gave two tricks to West. Now he wants to change and give one to East. He is not allowed to by L71A or C. If there is any doubtful point, it is to be resolved against him. Now if you argue that neither of these laws _explicitly covers the case of concession and revoke_, I will of course agree. Neither does any other law, however, so I don't see how that gives any comfort to either of our causes. :( These seem to be the closest relevant laws to me. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 01:51:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:51:22 +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 BAA18354 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:51:12 +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 KAA44791 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:51:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FBFQ00H Fri, 11 Jun 99 10:54:13 Message-ID: <9906111054.0FBFQ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 10:54:13 Subject: ESTABLISH To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au () Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I say that if you first call the director or wait around for the director before correcting a call that doing so constitutes pause for thought and L25B then applies. You must correct it right away, and if there is a question whether L25A applies, the director rules on it. Indicating that you [might] want to change a call is not attempting to change the call. It would be UI. Roger Pewick >In article <3.0.32.19990611100746.00a4e530@acsys.anu.edu.au>, "by way of >Markus Buchhorn " >writes >snip explanation of partner who has stated she wishes to chnge her call >under L25A, (RHO having called), and then bidding before >1) the change was made >2) the director was called >> >>Law 25A places conditions. Even if it was attempted to change BEFORE >>partner called, L25A no longer applies once partner calls. >> >and how do we reconcile this with Law 9B2? >-- >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 > Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 01:51:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:51:35 +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 BAA18363 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:51:26 +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 KAA44794 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:51:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FBHN00I Fri, 11 Jun 99 10:54:16 Message-ID: <9906111054.0FBHN00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 10:54:16 Subject: DO I OWE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au () Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 02:15 PM 6/11/99 +1000, you wrote: >> >>Al, >> >>It appears there are several things to consider in this auction. >> >>First is the meaning of 5CX. Supposedly it suggests a hand that has >defense >to 5H that may score better than 4S or 5S whether those >contracts make or >not. The double accomplishes little positive for >overcalller than that. >But, it accomplishes some things negative. >For instance, the only valuable >cards partner may contribute are the >black aces, the club jack/ doubleton >club, the diamond queen/ >doubleton diamond with extra length in spades. 5CX >precludes finding >anything about those assets. In fact 4D made it difficult >to find out >anything useful. >What 4di does or not have nothing with the case to do IMO. >> >>Second, if the hand was interested in slam why did he not rebid 5H to >>suggest second round club control and that any working controls or >fitting >cards would be useful. >> >>Third, if he was going to bid 6S no matter what partner did why not bid >it >straight over 5C. could it be it was partner's hesitation that >made it >likely that 6S would be successful? This is the most >important of the >issues and I can not resolve it in favor of >overcaller. >Somehow i get a feeeling that if it hesitates shoot it. Actually, if he unnecessarily gives his partner a bridge problem that winds up giving him a L16 problem, he has earned the consequences of L16. He did so on this hand. >> >The hesitation have infact made 6sp LESS attractive No, it is the pass that makes it less attractive since they could not move over 5CX. It is the huddle that makes it attractive. The huddle is just like taking two calls at a singe turn. 5CX was a bridge mistake because it was not geared to letting partner act knowledgably. 5H was superior since it implies club control and suggests that the problem with slam may be the trump suit/ diamond losers. >>Fourth, what was responder's problem? 5CX suggests that the >partnership is >better off defending. >On this we do not have enough information to say that X of 5cl suggests >i am willing to defend 5h, It can very well be an attempt to show the Cl >ctrl on the road and let pd decide what to do since there will be no way >of finding the slam if Pd is looking into xx in club and a pd that >couldnt X 5cl to show ctrl in the suit. >Why? Maybe there are too many losers. But what if >>responder's fitting cards and controls are working- then 5HX may not be >>enough when 5S makes, but maybe 5S is in danger. >> >>The huddle clarifies that the partnership's assets are working and >therefore >suggests bidding 6S over the LA of double and 5S. >Therefore, an infraction >occurred and an adjustment is called for if >the other side was damaged. >> >This is the famous if it huddles shoot it and shoot it quick before it >starts moving again. >The hesitation usually shows doubt about if pass is the right action. >Can agree to some extent that when it huddles it is normally with the >stronger alternative of several possible alternatives but have been >found on several occasion to not allow redress since you dont have >anything suggested over another and as a fact of that no damage and no >redress and that gives results stands. >>The double of 5C suggests that he was willing to sit for partner >doubling >5H. >I can easily thnk of it as showing i ctrl clubs and got interested after >your freebid of 4sp Therefore pass says Not Interested. >>It is not clear on the auction that 5S will make [opener may be void in >>clubs or they may have 2 black aces and a cashing diamond; or ace of >clubs >ruff a club] except for the huddle. It would appear that L12C2 >would >require that the least favorable of the probable results would >be awarded >from 5S=6 and 5HX. >Not clear that 5sp will make and 6sp is the suggested LA????? where is >bridge going in the 2000s ? >Robert > Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 01:51:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:51:47 +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 BAA18378 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:51:39 +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 KAA44798 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:51:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0FBJL00J Fri, 11 Jun 99 10:54:20 Message-ID: <9906111054.0FBJL00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 10:54:20 Subject: DO I OWE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au () Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >At 02:15 PM 6/11/99 +1000, you wrote: >> >>Al, >> >>It appears there are several things to consider in this auction. >> >>First is the meaning of 5CX. Supposedly it suggests a hand that has >defense >to 5H that may score better than 4S or 5S whether those >contracts make or >not. The double accomplishes little positive for >overcalller than that. >But, it accomplishes some things negative. >For instance, the only valuable >cards partner may contribute are the >black aces, the club jack/ doubleton >club, the diamond queen/ >doubleton diamond with extra length in spades. 5CX >precludes finding >anything about those assets. In fact 4D made it difficult >to find out >anything useful. >What 4di does or not have nothing with the case to do IMO. >> >>Second, if the hand was interested in slam why did he not rebid 5H to >>suggest second round club control and that any working controls or >fitting >cards would be useful. >> >>Third, if he was going to bid 6S no matter what partner did why not bid >it >straight over 5C. could it be it was partner's hesitation that >made it >likely that 6S would be successful? This is the most >important of the >issues and I can not resolve it in favor of >overcaller. >Somehow i get a feeeling that if it hesitates shoot it. Actually, if he unnecessarily gives his partner a bridge problem that winds up giving him a L16 problem, he has earned the consequences of L16. He did so on this hand. >> >The hesitation have infact made 6sp LESS attractive No, it is the pass that makes it less attractive since they could not move over 5CX. It is the huddle that makes it attractive. The huddle is just like taking two calls at a single turn. It suggests that any in tempo constructive [cue] bid such as 5S is likely to be 'misinterpreted' by partner. In this situation, an in tempo pass carries information different from a pass after a huddle. 5CX was a bridge mistake because it was not geared to letting partner act knowledgably. 5H was superior since it implies club control and suggests that the problem with slam may be the solidity of the trump or diamond suit. >>Fourth, what was responder's problem? 5CX suggests that the >partnership is >better off defending. >On this we do not have enough information to say that X of 5cl suggests >i am willing to defend 5h, It can very well be an attempt to show the Cl >ctrl on the road and let pd decide what to do since there will be no way >of finding the slam if Pd is looking into xx in club and a pd that >couldnt X 5cl to show ctrl in the suit. >Why? Maybe there are too many losers. But what if >>responder's fitting cards and controls are working- then 5HX may not be >>enough when 5S makes, but maybe 5S is in danger. >> >>The huddle clarifies that the partnership's assets are working and >therefore >suggests bidding 6S over the LA of double and 5S. >Therefore, an infraction >occurred and an adjustment is called for if >the other side was damaged. >> >This is the famous if it huddles shoot it and shoot it quick before it >starts moving again. >The hesitation usually shows doubt about if pass is the right action. >Can agree to some extent that when it huddles it is normally with the >stronger alternative of several possible alternatives but have been >found on several occasion to not allow redress since you dont have >anything suggested over another and as a fact of that no damage and no >redress and that gives results stands. >>The double of 5C suggests that he was willing to sit for partner >doubling >5H. >I can easily thnk of it as showing i ctrl clubs and got interested after >your freebid of 4sp Therefore pass says Not Interested. >>It is not clear on the auction that 5S will make [opener may be void in >>clubs or they may have 2 black aces and a cashing diamond; or ace of >clubs >ruff a club] except for the huddle. It would appear that L12C2 >would >require that the least favorable of the probable results would >be awarded >from 5S=6 and 5HX. >Not clear that 5sp will make and 6sp is the suggested LA????? where is >bridge going in the 2000s ? >Robert > Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 01:53:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA18404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:53:00 +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 BAA18399 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 01:52:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id KAA21361 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:53:42 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906111553.KAA21361@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:53:42 -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 > cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > > > L64A2 simply must refer both to actual tricks and > > > 'fictitious' tricks after a claim. > > > > > > It must! > > > > I quite agree, Herman. And fictitious tricks after a claim [or > > concession] are governed by claim/concession law, which quite explicitly > > gives the benefit of the doubt to the non-claiming [conceding] side. > > So we parcel out the fictitious tricks based on L68-71, and _then_ > > deal with the revoke. And then we find nothing whatsoever in L68-71 that > > tells us that we can or should give East a trick. So East has no trick, > > and L64A2 tells us that there is a one-trick penalty. > > > > > Herman DE WAEL > > > > Grant has a correct grasp of the situation. Mind if I print this e-mail and post it on my wall? :) > The only problem that remains is how to determine what > fictitious tricks have been made. > > Many of us think that this should be resolved against > revoker. > We believe that this is not covered in the Laws, but that it > is a logical thing to do. > > Grant OTOH maintains that this is covered by Law 70A : > > "In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates > the result of the board as equitably as possible to both > sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > Claimer." > > I have three remarks : > > - "contested claim". In the case at hand, the claim is not > contested. We are ruling on a revoke. I don't believe L70A > is applicable. Forgive me Herman, but I am confused. I thought we had agreed that we cannot evaluate the revoke until we determine the ownership of the fictitious tricks. That is what I am doing--ruling on the fictitious tricks. > - "equitably to both sides". We are determining who should > get the 13th trick, and we must do this as equitably as > possible. Surely giving it to claimer is more equitable > that giving it to revoker. Especially since I maintain that > claimer did not do anything wrong. "Equity" means [to me at least] restoring the situation as if there had been no infraction. It was stipulated in the original message that 'equity is one trick'. It looks to me as if equity is one trick. > - "doubtful points". Is the phrase that Grant refers to. > It is in doubt whether or not East will make a trick. But > there is no doubt that the trick will go to east-west. We > cannot NOT resolve the doubt as to who gains the trick (in > the claim) against claimer. There is no doubt, he will not > make this trick. Irrelevant, I think. To evaluate the revoke, we must decide if E or W won the fictitious trick. There is doubt as to which it is. Claimer gave the trick to West, and now wants to give it to East. Tricks are owned not merely by a _side_, but by a _player_. > There is doubt as to whether a one- or a two-trick penalty > is applicable, but saying that this is a doubtful point as > to L70A, is IMHO a stretch of the imagination. > > I can only maintain that L70A does not resolve the dilemma > and that the Laws are completely silent on this issue. Again, I am confused. I thought we _agreed_ that we must assign the fictitious tricks. Now it looks as though you are saying we cannot assign them. [Or, more properly, that the law doesn't specify how we are to assign them.] I don't see why not. > Herman DE WAEL -Grant Sterling From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 02:35:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:35:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailrelay.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-121.home.net [216.216.127.121] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18694 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:35:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from ani-bdc.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-124.home.net [216.216.127.124] (may be forged)) by mailrelay.affiliation.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23639; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:35:04 -0700 Received: by ani-bdc.affiliation.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:33:35 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jeff Goldsmith To: Ed Reppert Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Do I Owe an Apology? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:33:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] At 1:47 PM -0400 6/10/99, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > If pass is an LA, any >other >action is surely suggested by the UI over pass, so pass is enforced. You posit a hand in which _five_ spades cannot make, and then say that a slow pass suggests partner bid _six_ spades? I don't understand this. Can you elucidate? The point of finding a hand that doesn't make 5S is to demonstrate that partner's range is very wide, that bidding 6S without UI is unthinkable. Would it be unthinkable if partner had bid 5S? No, it'd be a reasonable but close call. I think it'd be against the odds, but it could easily be right. In the actual case, I think it's clearly right to bid 5S; that's the normal action. Passing is just barely a logical alternative. I'd guess that of 100 experts polled, fewer than ten would pass, but some number would seriously consider passing, so in the ACBL, passing is an LA. The reasoning behind bidding is that partner could've been saving over 4H and wants to sell to five, or he could have enough values where 5S is making and we are not getting 5H enough. We can't tell; there just isn't enough room to discern the two cases without letting them play 4H when it's wrong. Since the 4D bidder won't usually have a heart void and extras, we won't usually encounter this problem. Now that we have, it's probably right to guess to bid; in close cases, with a void in their suit bidding usually works out. So, why was partner thinking over 5H? Was it close between pass and double? Very unlikely, firstly because in a non-forcing pass situation, partner isn't likely to have a hand that will double; his hearts rate to be poor, since everyone is bidding to the moon and I have 17 HCP. Secondly, players just don't tank before doubling in these positions very often. Some may think for awhile to determine if pass is forcing or not, some may think for awhile about bidding, but someone who has a close double won't pass slowly, because he knows his partner will almost never double there, so if he wants to double, he has to do it himself. That means that partner was probably considering bidding 5S or possibly determining whether pass was forcing, therefore judging what his bid means. I'm guessing that it's the former, because (a) the committee presumably wasn't told otherwise, and (b) 6S must've made or there'd be no appeal. What he really was thinking about isn't relevant in theory, but when, in fact, a player was thinking about taking an action and his partner acts as if he had taken that action, it's a good bet that at least subconsciously, partner knew what the decision being made happened to be. So, in other words, I think that 6S was a L73 violation, that it was bid because the bidder judged that partner had undisclosed extra values. He couldn't know this from authorized information, indeed, I believe that his partner could have a 1-count, so I'm betting that he knew it from unauthorized information. As usual, I'd like to add that a good director (which Alan certainly is) will generally know more at the table than we will over the internet. For many reasons, the director may well pick a ruling that isn't the same as either mine or the group consensus, and often he'll be right. Any ruling I'd pick in this venue assumes only the information given here and assumes that all that information is correct. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 02:41:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:41:49 +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 CAA18712 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:41:41 +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 MAA13223 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:41:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:41:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906111641.MAA04865@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What is the lead penalty? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk N-S are playing Cappelletti, in which a 2C overcall of 1NT shows a one-suited hand. East opens 1NT, and South bids 1C. The director is now called, and takes South away from the table to inquire about the situation. South held six diamonds and had intended to bid Cappelletti 2C. The director informs South that since the sufficient 2C would be conventional, North will be barred no matter what South does. South bids 2D, and E-W get to 3NT. What is the lead penalty when North gets on lead? Is there no penalty (because 2D specified the same information oroginally intended by Cappelletti), or may the lead of a suit be forbidden (because the original call did not specify a suit), or may clubs be forbidden or required (because 1C specified 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 Sat Jun 12 02:51:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:51:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailrelay.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-121.home.net [216.216.127.121] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18750 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:50:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from ani-bdc.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-124.home.net [216.216.127.124] (may be forged)) by mailrelay.affiliation.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA23734 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:50:21 -0700 Received: by ani-bdc.affiliation.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:48:52 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jeff Goldsmith To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Do I Owe an Apology? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:48:52 -0700 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 From: Michael S. Dennis [mailto:msd@mindspring.com] At 10:47 AM 6/10/99 -0700, Jeff wrote: >No. I think there are two material cases: >1) E/W convince me that they had an express agreement in advance > that makes West's pass forcing. >2) Otherwise. How about 3) Indeterminate? Opinions in this forum have been more or less evenly split about whether pass is forcing here. I think that it is difficult to make the case for a non-forcing pass, simply because of East's double of 5C. What is the point of such a bid in the first place if not to establish in advance a forcing sequence? Obviously the opponents are not planning to play 5C, so it isn't for penalty. And since East is on lead against the presumptive 5H contract, it isn't lead-directing. Ron argues that it should show exactly this hand, i.e., 5053 with extras. But why on earth would you choose to paint a precise picture of your hand pattern for declarer if you were planning to sell to 5H? Perhaps it invites partner to double 5H with values in that suit, but I really don't see how it can be read as making room for 5H undoubled. Good point. I'm guessing that West wasn't judging about the forcing or non-forcing nature of his pass because (a) he'd've mentioned it to the committee, which would have helped his case, and (b) if E/W can make 6S, West should have bid whether the pass is forcing or not. Not so good point on East's bidding, though. The reason to paint a picture of your hand is to help partner decide what to do over 5H. If E/W choose to defend, telling partner about club values may be worth a trick. It's not hard to imagine play in which partner has two small clubs and East will eventually get endplayed if he can't get partner to lead a club through early. It's reasonable to play that double sets up a force here, but it won't work without partnership agreement. Some pairs might well have sufficiently detailed agreements to cover this situation. My partnerships probably have discussed forcing passes more than most tournament partnerships and our agreements don't cover this case. Fortunately, I use a meta-agreement that covers it: if none of our other rules cover the situation, forcing passes are not on. This seems perfectly clear to me, but obviously others see it differently. What does this tell us? That unless Pass is forcing by explicit agreement, West's most likely problem is trying to decide whether it is or isn't. And if that's the case, then West's hesitation does not "clearly show extra values" as Jeff claims. Consider the hand Jeff offers, for example: JTxx xxx,xxx xxx. Leaving aside the issue of what brand of brainless twit would volunteer a 4-level contract with that hand, doesn't it strike you as Perhaps it's brainless to support partner with four-card support in a competitive auction, but in this case, bidding 4S is the winning action. 4H probably makes and 5H is probably down one. Note that partner has already suggested a 4-level contract. We happen to have the fit he was hoping for, so bidding 4S over 4H, which is often a good thing to do, seems obvious to me. Make a heart a club (J10xx xx xxx xxxx) and not bidding 4S seems like a blunder to me. When 4S makes and 4H also makes, partner will not appreciate your silence. problematic to make a forcing pass, showing a willingness to compete at the 5-level, after you have already bid rather more vigorously than your cards can really justify? Mightn't you find yourself sweating just a bit with this pile, worrying whether partner might expect a lot more for 4S followed by a "forcing" pass? Could be, but if pass isn't forcing, it's easy to pass quickly. One nice feature of this problem is that it makes a good case for the change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". It was less a substantive alteration than a change of emphasis, stressing the importance of this second test in UI analysis. Nobody has provided a coherent argument for why this hesitation demonstrably suggests a 6S bid. Jeff at least gives it a mention, but the "clearly shows extra values" line doesn't bear close analysis, IMO. If the pass were unambiguously non-forcing, I could accept this reasoning. But it isn't, regardless of how various individuals might choose to interpret it either at the table or in analysis mode. That's a really good point: I am often on the side of the hesitator when it's quite likely that his problem is "what do my bids mean," or "what is going on?" Here, however, assuming 6S makes, I think it's clear that he was thinking of bidding 5S. Partner took what is not a sensible action without UI. Isn't that the hallmark of OBM? --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 02:54:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:54:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18793 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 02:54:47 +1000 (EST) From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com (2616) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pQPa008612 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:51:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:51:48 EDT Subject: Follow-Up to Apology Thread 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 Adam wrote: My instinct is to allow 6S, assuming West's pass is forcing. I can't tell whether West was thinking of doubling or bidding 5S (or something else), so I can't see how the slow pass demonstrably suggests any alternative over another. Adam was the first to point out what I fanally decided was at the core of this issue. That demonstrably word... Ron wrote: Any agreement as to strength shown by the 4D call? What would you expect it to show Ron? We're carrying partner to the 4 level with him as a passed hand. I play this convention (Roman Jumps) and have never discussed the "strength shown". Logic dictates. Presumably the (slow) pass was forcing. Or at least that would be the claim. I disagree that it is or should be without specific agreement. And this seems to be at the core of this issue. Jeff wrote: East has described his hand pretty well thus far and West has chosen to defend undoubled. He could have J10xx xxx xxx xxx, I think this is a silly and rather improbable concern. Yes, I know it "COULD" be happening. Many things are possible, as we know. But for all practical purposes, this MUST be a forcing auction. I recognize that I could be minus 850, but that seems to be an acceptable risk given the "logic" of the auction. I don't think it became a forcing pass situation until 5C was doubled. THAT set up the forcing pass. As one writer pointed out, what twit would have bid 4S on the hand that Jeff puts forth? in which case, 5H is probably going down. 5S will get doubled and go down, probably two tricks. Upon further reflection, there's no reason why West should not have that hand; with a better one, he'd've likely doubled 5H or bid. Therefore, I think pass is a LA. He wouldn't have doubled with "the better hand" if he reasoned out that this was a forcing pass situation! Craig wrote: No one likes hesitations, but there seems to be a predisposition to rule against any good or reasonable result obtained by the hesitating side. "If it hesitates, shoot it." Hesitations do not always suggest action, and sometimes they suggest nothing at all, such as the classic 1S -2S; hesitation 3S. Does that suggest anything? The call itself suggests uncertainty. I think Craig hits the nail on the head. This was one of the complaints of the late Bobby Goldman. He was quite concerned that we were coming to this position of "if it hesitates, shoot it". Mike wrote: Among the options of 5S, 6S, and (maybe) Dbl, I don't see what partner's hesitation has suggested, beyond that which his bidding shows in its own right. Values for slam? Why? Interest in defense? Maybe. I invited partner to double and he refused, though with evident hesitation. Perhaps his hesitation suggests that doubling is right, although I think it falls short of "demonstrably". In no way does his hesitation make a 6S bid more obvious, so I rule to let the result stand. I think Mike has expressed it the best. And this was my basic reasoning process when I decided to let the result stand. I acknowledge the reasons for an adjustment as having some logic, but I think they fall short for several reasons. I am pleased that the majority here seemed to agree with my decision in this case. I certainly was not anxious to go and apologize... We have had to make several policy decisions over the years in NABC Appeals. This was necessary in order to achieve SOME uniformity in our rulings. This case touches on one of our key decisions. In a forcing pass situation, it is highly unlikely that any slow action suggests anything other than uncertainty as to which action to take (double, pass or bid). This certainly cannot lead to useful UI for the partner. I thank all of you for your input... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 03:08:43 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:08:43 +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 DAA18835 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:08:34 +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 RAA23159 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 17:07:55 GMT Message-ID: <3761426B.7F5C6F90@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:07:56 +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: Do I Owe an Apology? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith a écrit : > From: Ed Reppert [mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com] > > At 1:47 PM -0400 6/10/99, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > If pass is an LA, any > >other > >action is surely suggested by the UI over pass, so pass is enforced. > > You posit a hand in which _five_ spades cannot make, and then say that a > slow pass suggests partner bid _six_ spades? I don't understand this. > Can > you elucidate? > > The point of finding a hand that doesn't make 5S is to > demonstrate that partner's range is very wide, that bidding > 6S without UI is unthinkable. Would it be unthinkable if > partner had bid 5S? No, it'd be a reasonable but close call. > I think it'd be against the odds, but it could easily be right. > > In the actual case, I think it's clearly right to bid 5S; that's > the normal action. Passing is just barely a logical > alternative. > I'd guess that of 100 experts polled, fewer than ten would pass, > but some number would seriously consider passing, so in the > ACBL, > passing is an LA. The reasoning behind bidding is that partner > could've been saving over 4H and wants to sell to five, or he > could have enough values where 5S is making and we are not > getting > 5H enough. We can't tell; there just isn't enough room to > discern > the two cases without letting them play 4H when it's wrong. > Since > the 4D bidder won't usually have a heart void and extras, we > won't > usually encounter this problem. Now that we have, it's probably > right to guess to bid; in close cases, with a void in their suit > bidding usually works out. > > So, why was partner thinking over 5H? Was it close between pass > and double? Very unlikely, firstly because in a non-forcing > pass > situation, partner isn't likely to have a hand that will double; > his hearts rate to be poor, since everyone is bidding to the > moon > and I have 17 HCP. Secondly, players just don't tank before > doubling > in these positions very often. Some may think for awhile to > determine > if pass is forcing or not, some may think for awhile about > bidding, but > someone who has a close double won't pass slowly, because he > knows his > partner will almost never double there, so if he wants to > double, he > has to do it himself. That means that partner was probably > considering > bidding 5S or possibly determining whether pass was forcing, > therefore > judging what his bid means. I'm guessing that it's the former, > because > (a) the committee presumably wasn't told otherwise, and (b) 6S > must've > made or there'd be no appeal. What he really was thinking about > isn't > relevant in theory, but when, in fact, a player was thinking > about > taking an action and his partner acts as if he had taken that > action, > it's a good bet that at least subconsciously, partner knew what > the > decision being made happened to be. > > So, in other words, I think that 6S was a L73 violation, that it > was > bid because the bidder judged that partner had undisclosed extra > values. > He couldn't know this from authorized information, indeed, I > believe > that his partner could have a 1-count, so I'm betting that > he knew it from unauthorized information. > > As usual, I'd like to add that a good director (which Alan > certainly is) > will generally know more at the table than we will over the > internet. > For many reasons, the director may well pick a ruling that isn't > the > same as either mine or the group consensus, and often he'll be > right. > Any ruling I'd pick in this venue assumes only the information > given here > and assumes that all that information is correct. > > --Jeff I read this as a very good lecture about the coincidence rule: you don't know how but you know he correctly infered his partner's hand from the huddle. If you don't understand why, shoot him anyway, "he" will for sure understand why! JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 03:30:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:30:02 +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 DAA18883 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:29:52 +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 KAA06055; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:29:09 -0700 Message-Id: <199906111729.KAA06055@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: What is the lead penalty? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:41:30 PDT." <199906111641.MAA04865@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:29:10 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > N-S are playing Cappelletti, in which a 2C overcall of 1NT shows a > one-suited hand. > > East opens 1NT, and South bids 1C. The director is now called, and > takes South away from the table to inquire about the situation. South > held six diamonds and had intended to bid Cappelletti 2C. The director > informs South that since the sufficient 2C would be conventional, North > will be barred no matter what South does. > > South bids 2D, and E-W get to 3NT. > > What is the lead penalty when North gets on lead? Is there no penalty > (because 2D specified the same information oroginally intended by > Cappelletti), or may the lead of a suit be forbidden (because the > original call did not specify a suit), or may clubs be forbidden or > required (because 1C specified clubs)? My opinion: L26A1 doesn't apply, because 2C Cappelletti (and, by extension, the 1C bid that was intended as 2C) does not relate to a specified suit(s)---it shows an *unspecified* suit. So your first option (no penalty) is impossible. In fact, your wording "specified the same information originally intended by Cappelletti", which doesn't appear in the Laws, is incorrect anyway, since 2D does *not* specify the same information as Cappelletti. 2D shows diamonds, 2C shows an unspecified one-suiter. So the choice is between applying L26B, or L26A2. I would apply L26B; the fact that South (knowing his partner was barred) corrected to 2D, not 2C, is sufficient to rule that 1C did *not* specify clubs. Law 26 is really impossible to apply exactly as written in this situation, since it requires one to answer, "What are this pair's agreements about what a particular insufficient bid shows?", which of course doesn't have an answer. So no matter how you look at it, you have to fudge something to get a correct ruling, which is why I feel comfortable deciding to apply L26B. But I believe Law 27B2 and L27B3 need to be rewritten *not* to refer to Law 26, which is impossible to apply; perhaps the NOs should simply be allowed to require or forbid the lead of any specific suit in this situation. One other complaint about L26, while I'm at it: 26A says "If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and", but the continuations, in 26A1 and 26A2, both talk about "that suit", which leaves one a bit confused about what to do if the withdrawn call specifies more than one suit. For example: Suppose N-S were playing Landy instead of Cappelletti, South bid 1C (intending to bid 2C), and then corrected to 2H. Let's assume we can apply L26A and decide that the 1C call related to hearts and spades (I don't really see how we can decide, without looking at South's hand, that he wasn't trying to show clubs and hearts, but let's assume we can anyway). Now, does L26A1 or L26A2 apply? It depends on whether "that suit was specified by the same player", but which major is "that suit"? I suspect the answer should be that North could be required or forbidden to lead spades, the suit that wasn't specified, but the way L26 is worded is very confusing. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 03:52:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA19068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:52:34 +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 DAA19061 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:52:27 +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 NAA15090 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:52:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:52:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906111752.NAA06275@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199906111729.KAA06055@mailhub.irvine.com> (message from Adam Beneschan on Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:29:10 PDT) Subject: Re: What is the lead penalty? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes: > One other complaint about L26, while I'm at it: 26A says "If the > withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and", but the > continuations, in 26A1 and 26A2, both talk about "that suit", which > leaves one a bit confused about what to do if the withdrawn call > specifies more than one suit. For example: Suppose N-S were playing > Landy instead of Cappelletti, South bid 1C (intending to bid 2C), and > then corrected to 2H. Let's assume we can apply L26A and decide that > the 1C call related to hearts and spades (I don't really see how we > can decide, without looking at South's hand, that he wasn't trying to > show clubs and hearts, but let's assume we can anyway). Now, does > L26A1 or L26A2 apply? It depends on whether "that suit was specified > by the same player", but which major is "that suit"? I suspect the > answer should be that North could be required or forbidden to lead > spades, the suit that wasn't specified, but the way L26 is worded is > very confusing. When the 1987 Laws came out, the ACBL published a pamphlet for players, which included an interpretation similar to this one (dealing with a withdraw Michaels cue-bid). IF a bid specifies two suits, lead penalties apply to whichever suit is not specified later. If a Michaels cue-bid of 2H showing spades and a minor is corrected to 1S, neither minor is specified for purposes of lead penalty unless it becomes clear from the subsequent auction (because the opponents find a big fit in one minor). -- 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 Jun 12 04:01:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:01:22 +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 EAA19145 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:01:14 +1000 (EST) From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com (2616) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pPPCa11719 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <827678ea.2492a86a@aol.com> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 13:59:06 EDT Subject: Re: do you or don't you? 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 6/11/99 10:28:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jeff@affiliation.com writes: > Pairs, both vul, you hold > > J10xx xxx xxx xxx > > LHO You RHO CHO > --- --- --- --- > Pass Pass 2H 4D (D+S) > 4H ? Yes, Jeff, I MIGHT very well. But I would then double 5H after partner doubled 5C. That created the forcing pass. in this auction my partner is going to be bigger than the actual hand he held. I would totally agree with your premise if my RHO were not a passed hand. I think all the given conditions require that for trust purposes, I treat this as a forcing pass because of the double of 5C. Unlike yourself, I have discussed this situation with my serious partners and we have agreed to these conditions. I find it more acceptable for constructive auctions to eat the RARE 850 here. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 04:02:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:02:14 +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 EAA19165 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:01:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10sVcX-000OMc-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:01:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:48:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990610235152.00767904@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990610235152.00767904@pop.mindspring.com>, "Michael S. Dennis" writes >At 10:47 AM 6/10/99 -0700, Jeff wrote: >>No. I think there are two material cases: >>1) E/W convince me that they had an express agreement in advance >> that makes West's pass forcing. >>2) Otherwise. >> snip > >One nice feature of this problem is that it makes a good case for the >change from "reasonably" to "demonstrably". It was less a substantive >alteration than a change of emphasis, stressing the importance of this >second test in UI analysis. Nobody has provided a coherent argument for why >this hesitation demonstrably suggests a 6S bid. Jeff at least gives it a >mention, but the "clearly shows extra values" line doesn't bear close >analysis, IMO. If the pass were unambiguously non-forcing, I could accept >this reasoning. But it isn't, regardless of how various individuals might >choose to interpret it either at the table or in analysis mode. Having been a "bid 6 with extras" pundit, I am now not so sure. I am sure that only 5S and 6S are logical alternatives. Nothing else. john > >Mike Dennis > -- 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 Jun 12 04:02:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:02:15 +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 EAA19166 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:01:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10sVcW-000OMd-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:01:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:43:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > The offending side is the one that revoked. Thus we resolve any >doubtful point [which card would be played first by the player >conceding] in favour of the NOS: thus it is a two-trick revoke. > > QED. > at last we know which way DWS has jumped. My side of the fence! Is this a first I wonder? 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 Jun 12 04:02:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:02:15 +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 EAA19168 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:01:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10sVcZ-000KX5-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:01:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 19:00:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: What is the lead penalty? In-Reply-To: <199906111641.MAA04865@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906111641.MAA04865@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu>, David Grabiner writes > >N-S are playing Cappelletti, in which a 2C overcall of 1NT shows a >one-suited hand. > >East opens 1NT, and South bids 1C. The director is now called, and >takes South away from the table to inquire about the situation. South >held six diamonds and had intended to bid Cappelletti 2C. The director >informs South that since the sufficient 2C would be conventional, North >will be barred no matter what South does. > >South bids 2D, and E-W get to 3NT. > >What is the lead penalty when North gets on lead? Is there no penalty >(because 2D specified the same information oroginally intended by >Cappelletti), or may the lead of a suit be forbidden (because the >original call did not specify a suit), or may clubs be forbidden or >required (because 1C specified clubs)? > I rule under 26B in this position and permit the banning of the lead of any one suit. i think this is routine in the UK. Cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 04:02:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:02:19 +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 EAA19176 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:02:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sVcW-0001hH-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:01:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:57:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: ESTABLISH In-Reply-To: <9906111054.0FBFQ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9906111054.0FBFQ00@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > >I say that if you first call the director or wait around for the director >before correcting a call that doing so constitutes pause for thought and >L25B then applies. You must correct it right away, and if there is a >question whether L25A applies, the director rules on it. > >Indicating that you [might] want to change a call is not attempting >to change the call. It would be UI. There was a clear statement that the player wished to change her call and that the call on the table was not the call she intended to make, *and* this statement had been made before her partner called. Law 25A applies absolutely and the change, in the UK, is automatic. The problem arises when her partner bids before I am called. The players in question are not bridge lawyers, just intermediate (Japanese) bridge players trying hard to cope with a difficult situation and conversing in a foreign language with a competent English Director. -- 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 Jun 12 04:02:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:02:57 +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 EAA19215 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:02:44 +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 OAA18568 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA01068 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:02:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:02:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906111802.OAA01068@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the lead penalty? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > East opens 1NT, and South bids 1C. The director is now called, and > takes South away from the table to inquire about the situation. South > held six diamonds and had intended to bid Cappelletti 2C. Why wasn't 1C corrected to 2C under L25A? I think the L26 ruling could go either way. Either "1C related to clubs, therefore L26A2" _or_ "Nobody knows what South intended, therefore 1C didn't relate to any suit, therefore L26B" would be reasonable. I think I'd go for the second, L26B, but I'd not say the first was wrong. Note carefully that it's "the withdrawn call," i.e. _1C_ that must be judged, NOT the intended 2C call. Equity seems to call for L26A1, but I don't see any way to rule that way. For the reasons Adam gave and some others we have discussed before, L26 could do with a bit of rephrasing. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 04:25:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:25:20 +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 EAA19384 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:25:13 +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 OAA15917 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:25:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:25:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906111825.OAA06798@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199906111802.OAA01068@cfa183.harvard.edu> (message from Steve Willner on Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:02:26 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: What is the lead penalty? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> From: David Grabiner >> East opens 1NT, and South bids 1C. The director is now called, and >> takes South away from the table to inquire about the situation. South >> held six diamonds and had intended to bid Cappelletti 2C. > Why wasn't 1C corrected to 2C under L25A? Since the director went away from the table to investigate, I can't tell what happened here. If South had intended to bid 2C and had pulled the wrong card, he should have been allowed to correct with no penalty. If he had intented to bid clubs and only later realized that 1C was insufficent, then he cannot correct the call. -- 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 Jun 12 04:30:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:30:20 +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 EAA19415 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:30:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id OAA25878 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:29:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199906111829.OAA25878@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:29:36 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Jeff Goldsmith" at Jun 11, 99 09:48:52 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith writes: > Partner took what is not a sensible action without UI. > Isn't that the hallmark of OBM? > More or less the way I was thinking. If he felt he had a clear 6S bid, why waste time doubling 5C? Is there any serious chance that if partner doubles 5H (presumably what the double was intended to invite) that it will go for more than the value of a vulnerable slam? It seems reasonably clear to me that he picked up something in the round of bidding that made shooting out a slam more attractive. Is it simply that partner has no wastage in hearts? Possible I suppose. (Was his plan to sit for a double and bid slam otherwise? Awfully tough on partner. And if he makes decisions like that, that in itself explains the hesitation.) -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 04:51:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA19471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:51:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from toolbox.total.net (toolbox.total.net [205.236.175.109]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA19466 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 04:51:47 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 829 invoked from network); 11 Jun 1999 18:51:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO total.net) (216.210.52.57) by smtp.total.net with SMTP; 11 Jun 1999 18:51:34 -0000 Message-ID: <37615A3C.6205AFB7@total.net> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 14:49:36 -0400 From: Andre Pion X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: List Bridge Subject: 7D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Does 7D apply to other conditions than those of the movement of the boards as explained in 7A, 7B & 7C? The wrong E/W pair sat at table 4 (they should have been playing at table 1) and began bidding until I got there and then the N/S pair realized than they were playing against the wrong pair. I gave them(N/S) a warning on the basis of 7D and applied 15C. The player in North was very frustrated about 7D. (the E/W pair did not have to play the board that they bid on because there was a skip in the movement and they skip that board) Was I right? Andre Pion Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 06:35:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 06:35:51 +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 GAA19788 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 06:35:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id PAA18983 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:36:09 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906112036.PAA18983@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 15:36:09 -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 > > I agree. But: > > 1) Where the written law is unclear, is it not reasonable to > >appeal to the Scope in choosing which interpretation to implement? Isn't > >'an outline of what the laws are intended to do' precisely the sort of > >thing a TD/AC needs in those difficult cases? > > No. I just do not see it. People have been claiming the Scope as a > reason for not giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-offending side > when their opponent has revoked - and yet the revoke Law includes > penalty tricks which are not in the same direction as the Scope. And of course where revoke law is _clear_ we implement the penalty tricks under it. But where revoke law is _not_ clear, we are in a different situation. In any case, revoke laws are an exception--most laws are written to promote equity, and I see nothing wrong with using equity as a guideline when those laws are unclear. I see nothing wrong with using equity to help us interpret L25, for example. > > 2) In many case, the laws allow explicit leeway to the TD/AC. Is > >it not reasonable to use the Scope in deciding how to exercise that > >leeway? For example, L12A1 says that the director may assign an adjusted > >score when he _judges_ that the NOS received inadequate compensation. May > >not one consult the Scope in making such a judgement? > > It is difficult to see how the Scope affects this. What people have > been doing is to quote the Scope as a reason not to penalise. L12A1 is > not a penalising Law. I quite agree, which is why _I_ don't use L12A1 to give penalties to players that go beyond equity. But, again--on what _basis_ do you determine if the compensation is 'insufficient'? Is there no standard for doing so? > Actually, you have given me a very good example here of why this using > the Scope is unnecessary as well as unhelpful. L12A1 tells the TD > exactly what to do: the Scope merely tells the TD why L12A1 is written > the way it is. It certainly does not help in interpreting L12A1 - > except perhaps for the people who have not read L12A1 and assume it > means penalising [there have been a couple of people recently] but why > should such people read the Scope any better? Are you saying that L12A1 is unambiguous? Are you saying that giving a two-trick revoke penalty under that law when a one-trick revoke penalty is otherwise possible does not constitute a 'penalty', even when equity is one trick? Is L12B unambiguous, too? :) > >> So in the case being discussed here we are trying to decide what the > >> Laws say. Whether our only aim, or our prime aim, is to restore equity > >> in this specific situation [or any other] is for the Lawmakers to decide > >> not for us. > > > > If, in fact, the laws in this case are contradictory or contain > >critical loopholes, on what basis does one choose what to do except by > >reference to the Scope? [In the absence of a definitive interpretation by > >the WBFLC--one which would presumably itself be guided by the principles > >in the Scope.] > > 1 Discussion to find the solution. > 2 Interpretation from NCBOs. > 3 Training of TDs. > 4 Regulations from SOs. > 5 Opinions from WBFLC members. > > Need I go on? Instead of which, you want to use a statement as to a > general approach to explain a Law. I don't think it is necessary, > desirable or effective. I think it is all three. This is my position on Law, generally--if the law is ambiguous, apply it in such a way as to uphold the _intent_ of the law, where that is clear. When the lawmakers are so good as to explicitly state that intent, it provides a most helpful guide. [Indeed, Plato proposed that _all_ laws be accompanied by a statement outlining their purpose or intent, so that they could be more intelligently applied to unforseen cases.] But, again: a) The other parties to the discussion, the NCBOs, the trainers of TDs, the SOs, etc., all must have some basis upon which to make those regulations and decisions. What better way than to give a general statement of purpose for the laws, to use in making such judgements? {I am currently engaged in negotiating a contract at my university. The biggest problem is that the administration thinks that any ambiguous passage is to be interpreted _however they feel like interpreting it that day_, even if that isn't what's best for the university or what the passage was intended to mean by the framers. The result is the creation of contract-lawyers on both sides, and considerable hostility. We would be far better off with a general statement of the purpose of the contract, which could be used to implement it in the face of ambiguous points.} b) What do we do when the NCBOs, etc., have not given us those interpretations, and if those we discuss it with disagree? {I might add that the semi-official 'Duplicate Decisions' explicitly says that L84 is intended to restore equity, defined as 'the normal result on the board if the infraction had not occurred'. FWIW.} > Ok, I know there are people who view our discussions on this list as > merely an interlude before someone tells us what Kaplan thinks. I think I am not one of them, BTW. > such people are not getting much from this list. I think we would do > better to follow people like Steve Willner and Marvin French and John > Probst and Herman de Wael others like that and try to find solutions > from reading the Laws and quoting our NCBOs and comparing opinions until I admire the contribution of those people, and people like them [including yourself] to this List. In some cases, someone finds a law that answers a question that previously seemed difficult or ambiguous. But sometimes the law is genuinely ambiguous. What I do not understand is where you think we should be going in such cases. > we get somewhere. To decide whether we are giving one penalty trick or > two based on how near it is to some vague statement in the Scope rather > than looking at the actual Laws is not the way to go. I am not sure whether to feel insulted or not. I have looked at the Laws. I have read L12, L64, L68-71, and L84. I have no access to any proclamation from my NCBO regarding what to do when there is a concession after a revoke. I do not think the laws give anything like an unambiguous answer to this question. One law says doubtful points are to be resolved against revoker--another implies that they should be resolved against conceder. One law says to give an adjusted score when the laws provide no indemnity, while another says that we may not assign such a score when the laws provide an indemnity that we might think is insufficient. If indeed L12A1 "tells the TD exactly what to do" in the revoke case, I quite freely confess I am too stupid to see it. I have always thought that when the _letter_ of the law is ambiguous, we should judge by the spirit of the laws. The Scope seems to be an explicit attempt to articulate the spirit of the laws. > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Sincerely, Grant Sterling PS: This thread seems to me to have produced increasing polarization, bordering on hostility. If this is a misperception on my part, I would be happy to discover it. If I am the cause of it, I most sincerely apologize. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 06:53:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA19848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 06:53:05 +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 GAA19843 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 06:52:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from griffon (ppp09.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.109]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24833 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:52:44 +0300 (EEST) Message-Id: <199906112052.XAA24833@hunter2.int.kiev.ua> From: "Kapustin Sergey " To: "BLML" Subject: Re: What is the lead penalty? Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:49:42 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1154 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Grabiner > > N-S are playing Cappelletti, in which a 2C overcall of 1NT shows a > one-suited hand. > > East opens 1NT, and South bids 1C. The director is now called, and > takes South away from the table to inquire about the situation. South > held six diamonds and had intended to bid Cappelletti 2C. The director > informs South that since the sufficient 2C would be conventional, North > will be barred no matter what South does. > > South bids 2D, and E-W get to 3NT. > > What is the lead penalty when North gets on lead? Is there no penalty > (because 2D specified the same information oroginally intended by > Cappelletti), or may the lead of a suit be forbidden (because the > original call did not specify a suit), or may clubs be forbidden or > required (because 1C specified clubs)? > As a TD I don't take South away, don't look at his hand and rule: if first call 1C specified clubs then I apply L26A2 related to clubs; if first call 1C is not natural I apply L26B2 related to clubs, hearts, spades - not to diamonds. Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 07:10:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 07:10:44 +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 HAA19939 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 07:10:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (R-G-187-33.access.net.il [192.117.187.33]) by Q.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05053; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:09:46 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <37617B6F.DE28F115@internet-zahav.net> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:11:12 +0300 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? References: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well There is no doubt that the pass is forcing. The only question , for an experienced pair is : what are the options over opponents' 5Cl ?? Double means honors in clubs??and 5H is what ????? I'd inquire about ...... Then the hesitation can send a hint about 5S or 6S ....For a high level contest , I'll not let the score stand without a lot of questions about the pair's conventions... Friendly Dany AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East > holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. > The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > > * = Diamonds and spades > ** = Clear break in tempo > > Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I > will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek > the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. > > Thanks, > Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 07:11:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA19964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 07:11:22 +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 HAA19957 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 07:11:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10sYZh-000GoO-0A; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:10:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:05:10 +0100 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? References: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <8abda0fc.24913b7f@aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >I am quite unsure of my ruling here. I would appreciate your opinions. East >holds: KQ984 void AKT63 KQ3. Both vul, pairs. Both pairs experienced. >The auction: > > S W N E > P P 2H 4D* > 4H 4S 5C DBL > 5H P** P 6S > AP > >* = Diamonds and spades >** = Clear break in tempo > >Would you allow the 6S call? Obviously it made (required careful play). I >will disclose what my ruling was later. I promised the players I would seek >the opinions of this group and apologize if I was outvoted. > >Thanks, >Alan LeBendig I'll go first - always a risk of saying something stupid At first glance 6S appears very odd - what's happening - oh there's UI - "disallow the bid" is almost a reflex response especially if it makes - BUT surely this is wrong UI tells us that partner has a problem over 5H - but what does this suggest? Is Pass a LA? I don't think so - surely we are not expected to pass here? - so what choices does East have ? Double 5S 6S??? My guess is if East chooses Double and it turns out to be the right action there will be a strong vote for -- demonstrably suggested and if 5S wins the same thing but 6S ??? how does partner's thought make this a more likely successful action? My vote is for result stands Mike (always waiting to be told he's wrong) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 09:00:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:00:07 +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 IAA20184 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 08:59:57 +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 SAA05362 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA01424 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:59:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906112259.SAA01424@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 7D X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Andre Pion > The wrong E/W pair sat at table 4 (they should have been playing at > table 1) and began bidding until I got there and then the N/S pair > realized than they were playing against the wrong pair. > I gave them(N/S) a warning on the basis of 7D and applied 15C. The > player in North was very frustrated about 7D. BLML discussed this a few weeks ago. In most of the world (judging from comments on this list), the NS pairs are not responsible for checking the EW pair numbers. However, in North America, it is the custom for the NS pairs to verify the EW numbers. Nobody found any official directive requiring this to be done, but warnings and even PP's for not doing so have been given. If your club wants to require stationary pairs to check the numbers of moving pairs, there is nothing to stop you from doing so. Of course if NS ask and EW don't answer or mumble or give the wrong pair number, then NS are surely off the hook. In your case, I'd have suggested a PP to EW and a warning to NS or perhaps a warning to EW and a polite request to NS (not really much different than a warning, but it sounds better). No doubt NS are less at fault than EW, but in North America they can be considered a little bit at fault. If NS are used to playing elsewhere, they may be surprised by this view. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 09:22:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:10 +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 JAA20229 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:21:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sacA-000PWA-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:21:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:22:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ESTABLISH References: <9906111054.0FBFQ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> 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 <9906111054.0FBFQ00@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >writes >> >>I say that if you first call the director or wait around for the director >>before correcting a call that doing so constitutes pause for thought and >>L25B then applies. You must correct it right away, and if there is a >>question whether L25A applies, the director rules on it. >> >>Indicating that you [might] want to change a call is not attempting >>to change the call. It would be UI. Indicating you wish to change a call is good enough. Calling the TD because you want to change the call is good enough. If a player makes any attempt to change a call, that is good enough for L25A. >There was a clear statement that the player wished to change her call >and that the call on the table was not the call she intended to make, >*and* this statement had been made before her partner called. Law 25A >applies absolutely and the change, in the UK, is automatic. The problem >arises when her partner bids before I am called. The players in question >are not bridge lawyers, just intermediate (Japanese) bridge players >trying hard to cope with a difficult situation and conversing in a >foreign language with a competent English Director. Oh? Which 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 Sat Jun 12 09:22:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:11 +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 JAA20230 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:21:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sacA-000PWD-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:21:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:48:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is the lead penalty? References: <199906111802.OAA01068@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906111802.OAA01068@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Grabiner >> East opens 1NT, and South bids 1C. The director is now called, and >> takes South away from the table to inquire about the situation. South >> held six diamonds and had intended to bid Cappelletti 2C. > >Why wasn't 1C corrected to 2C under L25A? Because he did not try to change it without pause for thought, or [less likely but possible] because at the moment he bid he intended to bid 1C, whatever he had decided earlier. I know that ACBL TDs sometimes take a player away to ask him about L25A but this is against the Laws if there has been a pause for thought. >I think the L26 ruling could go either way. Either "1C related to >clubs, therefore L26A2" _or_ "Nobody knows what South intended, >therefore 1C didn't relate to any suit, therefore L26B" would be >reasonable. What is the point of taking South away from the table if you are going to disbelieve the answer? > I think I'd go for the second, L26B, but I'd not say the >first was wrong. > >Note carefully that it's "the withdrawn call," i.e. _1C_ that must be >judged, NOT the intended 2C call. I believe this is the answer: as you know I do not have your lack of faith in TD's abilities to adduce facts. Thus we have to find out as well as we can what suit[s] were referred to by the insufficient bid and apply L26 accordingly. In the current case it specified no suit and L26B applies. >Equity seems to call for L26A1, but I don't see any way to rule that >way. Grrrrrr. >For the reasons Adam gave and some others we have discussed before, L26 >could do with a bit of rephrasing. Yes. I don't like L27 at all. I cannot think of any reason why the conventionality of a call that a pair will have no agreement over has any relevance. My own choice would be to always allow a change to the next call up with careful checking of UI. If this is not to be my second choice would be only to check the conventionality of the next call up not the insufficient one. Then I would put a reference into L27 as to what suit[s] are used for the purposes of L26. ----------------- Kapustin Sergey wrote: >As a TD I don't take South away, don't look at his hand and rule: >if first call 1C specified clubs then I apply L26A2 related to clubs; >if first call 1C is not natural I apply L26B2 related to clubs, hearts, >spades - not to diamonds. Using this approach you have to allow L26B to apply to any suit: there are no suits excluded from L26B. It is an interesting idea, this 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 Sat Jun 12 09:22:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:12 +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 JAA20231 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sacA-000PWC-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:21:37 +0000 Message-ID: <+nwO4bA8HZY3EwQ1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:47:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is the lead penalty? References: <199906111641.MAA04865@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> <199906111729.KAA06055@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199906111729.KAA06055@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >One other complaint about L26, while I'm at it: 26A says "If the >withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and", but the >continuations, in 26A1 and 26A2, both talk about "that suit", which >leaves one a bit confused about what to do if the withdrawn call >specifies more than one suit. For example: Suppose N-S were playing >Landy instead of Cappelletti, South bid 1C (intending to bid 2C), and >then corrected to 2H. Let's assume we can apply L26A and decide that >the 1C call related to hearts and spades (I don't really see how we >can decide, without looking at South's hand, that he wasn't trying to >show clubs and hearts, but let's assume we can anyway). Could you ask him? > Now, does >L26A1 or L26A2 apply? It depends on whether "that suit was specified >by the same player", but which major is "that suit"? I suspect the >answer should be that North could be required or forbidden to lead >spades, the suit that wasn't specified, but the way L26 is worded is >very confusing. The interpretation I believe to be correct is that L26A applies if the call fully specifies a suit or suits. You then apply the two parts to all suits. So if 1C=2C shows hearts and spades, and later the player bids spades, then L26A1 applies to spades - no lead penalties in the spade suit - and L26A2 applies to hearts - lead penalties in the heart suit. -------- David Grabiner wrote: >When the 1987 Laws came out, the ACBL published a pamphlet for players, >which included an interpretation similar to this one (dealing with a >withdraw Michaels cue-bid). IF a bid specifies two suits, lead >penalties apply to whichever suit is not specified later. If a Michaels >cue-bid of 2H showing spades and a minor is corrected to 1S, neither >minor is specified for purposes of lead penalty unless it becomes clear >from the subsequent auction (because the opponents find a big fit in one >minor). I do not agree with the latter interpretation. The withdrawn call did not relate to a specified suit or suits and L26A is inapplicable: use L26B. -- 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 Jun 12 09:22:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:16 +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 JAA20242 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:21:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sacE-000PWA-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:21:40 +0000 Message-ID: <4HfPAgACPZY3EwTT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:54:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 7D References: <37615A3C.6205AFB7@total.net> In-Reply-To: <37615A3C.6205AFB7@total.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andre Pion wrote: >Does 7D apply to other conditions than those of the movement of the >boards as explained in 7A, 7B & 7C? > >The wrong E/W pair sat at table 4 (they should have been playing at >table 1) and began bidding until I got there and then the N/S pair >realized than they were playing against the wrong pair. >I gave them(N/S) a warning on the basis of 7D and applied 15C. The >player in North was very frustrated about 7D. (the E/W pair did not have >to play the board that they bid on because there was a skip in the >movement and they skip that board) > >Was I right? We have discussed this recently without achieving unanimity. I believe you were wrong. Law 7 refers to the control of boards and cards not to opposing pairs. L5B makes the responsibility for being at the correct table fully the responsibility of the players themselves. You may make a local regulation and make North responsible - or better still, all players responsible. A common instruction over here *when playing Howells* is that *all* players should check the Howell cards and make sure they have the right opponents and boards. Such an instruction is legal but without it I do not believe that North is in any way responsible for making sure he has the right opponents. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 09:22:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:18 +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 JAA20245 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:21:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sacF-000PWD-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:21:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:59:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <199906111535.KAA17497@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906111535.KAA17497@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wrote: >> > Unfortunately, we also have L70 "any doubtful points shall be >> >resolved against the claimer". No such passage appears in L71, but only >> >[I am quite sure] because the writers of the laws never imagined anyone >> >would construct a case where there were 'doubtful points' in this sense in >> >a concession, or that if there were someone would resolve them in favor of >> >the conceder! >> > But, in any case, please state _all_ of L84D! >> > >> > "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified >> >penalty {L64} and the award of an adjusted score {L12A}, _he attempts to >> >restore equity_, resolving any doubtful point in favor of the >> >non-offending side." >> > [emphasis and brackets mine, of course] >> >> Oh, thanks. I knew someone would destroy your argument sometime. >> >> The offending side is the one that revoked. Thus we resolve any >> doubtful point [which card would be played first by the player >> conceding] in favour of the NOS: thus it is a two-trick revoke. > > Sigh. David, is that really how you read this passage? Do you >really think that the part about choosing between a specified penalty and >an adjusted score, and the part about 'attempts to restore equity', are >not relevant to this case? > I guess this is the end of our disagreement. I think this law is >clear, and that we are to resolve doubtful points in favor of the NOS >_while we are restoring equity_. There is no question that one trick >restores equity--that was, in fact, stipulated in the original message. >So the first two parts of the law tell us to give the one-trick penalty, >and the final part merely tells us how to rule when there are doubts about >what constitutes equity. > If you honestly tell me that this is not how you read this law, I >am quite sure that neither of us will convince the other. No, you blind-sided me. L84D just has no bearing on the situation. Back to the drawing board. >> > "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified >> >penalty {L64} and the award of an adjusted score {L12A}, Well, it doesn'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 Sat Jun 12 09:22:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:17 +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 JAA20247 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sacG-000PWC-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:21:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:05:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment, and L25A References: <199906112036.PAA18983@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906112036.PAA18983@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Some confederate general [or was he a Yankee?] wrote: > I have always thought that when the _letter_ of the law is >ambiguous, we should judge by the spirit of the laws. The Scope seems to >be an explicit attempt to articulate the spirit of the laws. Nothing will convince me that the spirit of the Law is to rule in doubtful cases for the offending side. The Scope refers to "adequate remedy" and giving a trick to a pair because they revoked hardly seems that. >PS: This thread seems to me to have produced increasing polarization, >bordering on hostility. If this is a misperception on my part, I would be >happy to discover it. If I am the cause of it, I most sincerely >apologize. While I disagree completely with your arguments I have no problem whatsoever with the way that they are presented. Of course, I wish you had a working Reply-To address! -- 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 Jun 12 09:22:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:19 +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 JAA20254 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sacF-000PW9-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:21:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:57:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke 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 , David Stevenson > writes >> >> The offending side is the one that revoked. Thus we resolve any >>doubtful point [which card would be played first by the player >>conceding] in favour of the NOS: thus it is a two-trick revoke. >> >> QED. >> >at last we know which way DWS has jumped. My side of the fence! Is this >a first I wonder? I knew I was wrong. I no longer believe that L84D has anything to do with it. If you read it carefully it does not cover this situation. -- 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 Jun 12 09:32:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA20347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:32:52 +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 JAA20342 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:32:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from p58s05a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.133.89] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10samg-0005oc-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:32:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Do I Owe an Apology? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:22:42 +0100 Message-ID: <01beb461$4dc5f940$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: Jeff Goldsmith To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, June 11, 1999 6:09 PM Subject: RE: Do I Owe an Apology? > > >From: Michael S. Dennis [mailto:msd@mindspring.com] > >At 10:47 AM 6/10/99 -0700, Jeff wrote: >>No. I think there are two material cases: >>1) E/W convince me that they had an express agreement in advance >> that makes West's pass forcing. >>2) Otherwise. > > >How about 3) Indeterminate? Opinions in this forum have been more or >less >evenly split about whether pass is forcing here. I think that it is >difficult to make the case for a non-forcing pass, simply because of >East's >double of 5C. What is the point of such a bid in the first place if not >to >establish in advance a forcing sequence? Obviously the opponents are not >planning to play 5C, so it isn't for penalty. And since East is on lead >against the presumptive 5H contract, it isn't lead-directing. Ron argues >that it should show exactly this hand, i.e., 5053 with extras. How often are we asked to rule because the offending side have already got themselves into a mess in the auction. TDs make rulings not bids, but I am sure that West would have less cause to trance if East had bid 5H instead of doubling 5C. I am ruling 5S + 1. I think that the hesitation demonstrably suggested a lack of certainty about proceeding, but suggested a little extra. Certainly a man with AH would double, and I think a man with no ace would pass smoothly. Anne [s] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 13:46:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA20877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:46:58 +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 NAA20872 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:46:49 +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 WAA76020 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Jun 1999 22:46:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0W3SZ026 Fri, 11 Jun 99 22:51:14 Message-ID: <9906112251.0W3SZ02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 11 Jun 99 22:51:14 Subject: CONCESSION AFTER RE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B>wrote: B>>> > Unfortunately, we also have L70 "any doubtful points shall be B>>> >resolved against the claimer". No such passage appears in L71, but B>only >> >[I am quite sure] because the writers of the laws never B>imagined anyone >> >would construct a case where there were 'doubtful B>points' in this sense in >> >a concession, or that if there were someone B>would resolve them in favor of >> >the conceder! B>>> > But, in any case, please state _all_ of L84D! B>>> > B>>> > "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified B>>> >penalty {L64} and the award of an adjusted score {L12A}, _he B>attempts to >> >restore equity_, resolving any doubtful point in favor B>of the >> >non-offending side." B>>> > [emphasis and brackets mine, of course] B>>> B>>> Oh, thanks. I knew someone would destroy your argument sometime. B>>> B>>> The offending side is the one that revoked. Thus we resolve any B>>> doubtful point [which card would be played first by the player B>>> conceding] in favour of the NOS: thus it is a two-trick revoke. B>> B>> Sigh. David, is that really how you read this passage? Do you B>>really think that the part about choosing between a specified penalty B>and >an adjusted score, and the part about 'attempts to restore equity', B>are >not relevant to this case? B>> I guess this is the end of our disagreement. I think this law B>is >clear, and that we are to resolve doubtful points in favor of the B>NOS >_while we are restoring equity_. There is no question that one B>trick >restores equity--that was, in fact, stipulated in the original B>message. B>>So the first two parts of the law tell us to give the one-trick B>penalty, >and the final part merely tells us how to rule when there are B>doubts about >what constitutes equity. B>> If you honestly tell me that this is not how you read this law, B>I >am quite sure that neither of us will convince the other. B>No, you blind-sided me. L84D just has no bearing on the situation. B>Back to the drawing board. B>>> > "If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified B>>> >penalty {L64} and the award of an adjusted score {L12A}, B>Well, it doesn't. Sounds on target to me. Roger Pewick 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, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 18:03:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:03:25 +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 SAA21264 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:03:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA00863 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:02:38 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 12 Jun 99 09:02 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Concession after 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: <00a101beb1fc$7a025240$90dc7ad1@hdavis> Hirsch wrote: > > If we have chance from the laws to manage the revoke without this > > overcompensation-tricks we should catch it. One trick is enough. > > > > This is completely wrong. Our opinion of whether or not the penalty > called > for by the revoke laws is "overcompensation" or not has no bearing > whatsoever on the ruling. If we allow our personal feelings about a > Law to > color our rulings based on that Law, we should not be directing bridge > games. Obviously if the Law admits no ambiguity the TD should not allow his personal feelings to interfere. However, when the law admits ambiguity I would expect any TD to rule based on his own perception of "fairness" (hopefully explaining why he has made his ruling and advising that any appeal would have "merit"). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 22:02:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA21601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:02:11 +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 WAA21596 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 22:01:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.112.230]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA1D73 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:01:22 +0100 Message-ID: <008401beb4cb$83bfd2e0$e6708cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: What is the lead penalty? Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:02:11 +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: > > The interpretation I believe to be correct is that L26A applies if the >call fully specifies a suit or suits. You then apply the two parts to >all suits. So if 1C=2C shows hearts and spades, and later the player >bids spades, then L26A1 applies to spades - no lead penalties in the >spade suit - and L26A2 applies to hearts - lead penalties in the heart >suit. > ######### I seem to recall a recent official interpretation on this list, possibly from Grattan, that indicated that *all* such suits had to be specified before L26A1 applied. Thus, in your example, the failure to specify hearts would permit lead penalties in both hearts and spades. Perhaps, Grattan or somebody who has kept a BLML archive could clarify this? ############ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 12 23:57:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA21848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:57:18 +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 XAA21842 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:57:09 +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 JAA06859 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:55:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990612095426.00793bf0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: thg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:54:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Booby Wolff's view of Appeals Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Anybody who has not, should read an article by Bobby Wolff which appeared in the first Bulletin at the ACBL ITT which started yesterday. The article appears here: http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/itt/99itt01.htm Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 00:20:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:20:54 +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 AAA24155 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10soe7-000CHr-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 14:20:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:54:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article , David Stevenson >> writes >>> >>> The offending side is the one that revoked. Thus we resolve any >>>doubtful point [which card would be played first by the player >>>conceding] in favour of the NOS: thus it is a two-trick revoke. >>> >>> QED. >>> >>at last we know which way DWS has jumped. My side of the fence! Is this >>a first I wonder? > > I knew I was wrong. > > I no longer believe that L84D has anything to do with it. I actually fancy Law 84E, rather than 84D. I think the irregularity is that the revoke is still concealed. Now I can go straight to L12A1 "in my judgement" John > > If you read it carefully it does not cover this situation. > Agreed -- 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 Jun 13 00:20:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA24165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:20:54 +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 AAA24154 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10soe7-000CHq-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 14:20:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 03:55:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: do you or don't you? In-Reply-To: <827678ea.2492a86a@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <827678ea.2492a86a@aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >In a message dated 6/11/99 10:28:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, >jeff@affiliation.com writes: > >> Pairs, both vul, you hold >> >> J10xx xxx xxx xxx >> >> LHO You RHO CHO >> --- --- --- --- >> Pass Pass 2H 4D (D+S) >> 4H ? > >Yes, Jeff, I MIGHT very well. But I would then double 5H after partner >doubled 5C. That created the forcing pass. in this auction my partner is >going to be bigger than the actual hand he held. I would totally agree with >your premise if my RHO were not a passed hand. I think all the given >conditions require that for trust purposes, I treat this as a forcing pass >because of the double of 5C. Unlike yourself, I have discussed this >situation with my serious partners and we have agreed to these conditions. I >find it more acceptable for constructive auctions to eat the RARE 850 here. > >Alan LeBendig Proddy and I bid 4S and then have to double with this hand to stop partner doing something stupid. ... and yes we concede the occasional 850 and consider it the price one pays. Cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 01:28:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:28:36 +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 BAA24353 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:28:17 +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 LAA29214 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA10135; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906121528.LAA10135@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Wolff ITT Article Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I thought this was interesting. Thanks to the BLML member for bringing this to our attention. (Reprinted without permission and with apologies.) Tony (aka ac342) An Appeal From Last Year's ITT: Revisited by Bobby Wolff Last year my team was involved in the appeal described below (adapted from the write-up in the ACBL Appeal Casebook Looped in Chicago, p 97). Even though the decision in this case made no difference in the outcome of the match (we won by a comfortable margin), some important issues which bear upon the final decision deserve airing. First let's look at the case as it was reported and then I'll point out the additional issues I believe should have been given more weight than they were. I would also like to solicit your input on both the original decision and the alternate view presented here, so that we have a sense of the direction in which you would like to see appeals go in this event in the future. If you would, please let Rich Colker or me know your opinion before you leave this tournament. Event: ITT, 6/16/98, RD of 16, Segment Two Teams: N/S: Deutsch versus E/W: Brachman Bd: 26 Bobby Wolff Dlr: East S Q J 9 4 Vul: Both H J 7 3 2 D J 6 3 C 7 4 Harold Lilie Marc Jacobus S A 10 3 S 7 6 2 H K 10 8 5 H Q D K Q 10 D 5 4 2 C J 8 3 C K Q 10 6 5 2 Seymon Deutsch S K 8 5 H A 9 6 4 D A 9 8 7 C A 9 West North East South Pass 1NT(1) Pass Pass Dbl(2) All Pass (1) 15-17 HCP (2) Alerted: by E to N as a one-suiter, (most likely clubs by a passed hand as 2C would have shown diamonds); by W to S (disputed, see The Facts) The Facts: 1NT doubled went down two, plus 500 for E/W. According to West, when the tray returned to the S-W side of the screen after East's double South passed quickly as he (West) tapped his Alert strip. South was looking in his general direction but made no acknowledgment of the Alert. West then passed and the tray went to the N-E side of the screen, where it remained for some time before returning with North's final pass. Before he led, West volunteered to South "You know that shows a one-suiter?" (referring to East's double). South said, "No, I didn't know. I think I might have bid if I'd known that." According to West, he then asked South if he wanted a Director. South responded "No," but when West then led a club South requested a Director. According to South, who admitted that he did not recall the exact sequence of events on his side of the screen, he was surprised when West volunteered that East's double showed a one-suiter. South said that he had not been Alerted and that he considered bidding over the double even without the Alert. He finally decided to leave it up to North whether they should run. However, had he been Alerted that the double showed a club one-suiter he said he would have redoubled for rescue. He considered his hand unsuitable for playing 1NT doubled, containing, as it did, only "aces and spaces." South adamantly denied waiting for West to lead before asking for the Director ("I never would have waited to see the lead before calling for the Director"). He said he asked for the Director as soon as he was told the double showed a one-suiter. He could not say precisely when the opening lead was faced; only that at some point it was on the table. The Director determined that South had not been properly Alerted and West was shown how to "wave the Alert strip in front of his screenmate's face." The Director subsequently ruled, however, that South was not damaged by West's failure to Alert properly or to explain the meaning of the double in a timely enough fashion (Law 40C). The table result was allowed to stand. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that South had not been properly Alerted and that West's later volunteering the meaning of the double also suggested that he was aware that South might not have seen the Alert. The promptness of South's pass of the double left open the question of whether his motivation to pull the double derived from West's explanation or from the break in tempo before North's final pass. The Committee did not believe that it was normal to pull this double since most of the time it would be removed to 2C by the doubler's partner or North would be able to run. Also, it was not at all likely that a double by a passed hand would be intended for penalties, so South should have been aware that the double had some other meaning. The Committee allowed the table result of 1NT doubled down two, minus 500 for N/S, to stand for both sides. What's Missing? My Side: Now here is what I think should have been focused on and what the Committee missed. South had a hand which would not play well in 1NT doubled, being suit oriented as it was. If East's passed-hand double most likely showed a club one suiter, South had the worst possible club holding. In addition, South may not have remembered at the time of the double that East was a passed hand and thus not recognized that the double would not be a strong, balanced hand. But even had he been aware of this, it should be remembered that South played much of his bridge during a time (the 1950's and 60's) when a double by a passed hand was often used to show a maximum pass (11-12 HCP in a balanced hand). Thus, it was wrong to hold him responsible for knowing that such a double in the modern game would not show that type of hand. Now consider North. He remembers being told by East that his passed-hand double showed clubs. Once the double came around to him he should have been able to act, confident that South had been properly Alerted to the likely meaning of East's double. Now what about the ethics involved in North running when he suspects South did not consider West's Alert before passing? We need to consider some of these ethical chestnuts and make a determination. Otherwise, the ethical players will always get the worst of it and the others will continue to take advantage. Without screens, had North seen that South might not have registered the Alert he could perhaps have taken out insurance by running, since his own hand was inclined in that direction anyhow. But assuming that South had properly been told the likely meaning of the double, North decided not to overrule his partner's decision to sit, even though his hand suggested a problem. North believes he was denied the opportunity to exercise his judgment. Finally, West had an obligation to Alert properly by not only saying "Alert," but also by tapping the blue Alert strip to insure that his screenmate registered the Alert. His recognition that South was probably not aware of the Alert, witnessed by his volunteering a second Alert of sorts, came too late after he had already passed and the tray had gone to the other side of the screen. Both the Director's ruling and the Committee's decision ignore West's culpability in this matter. It is not the right message to send not to adjust E/W's score, since South clearly would have run had he been given the right information from a proper Alert. This should have been done, even if N/S were judged not to deserve redress. So, what do you think? --------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 01:35:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA24399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:35:00 +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 BAA24394 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:34:51 +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 LAA29872 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA11582; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906121534.LAA11582@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Other ITT issues Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is some more informatiion from the ITT bulletin. Tony (aka ac342) --------------------------------------------------------------------- A Reminder: 1999 ITT Conditions of Contest Players are reminded that the following items appear in this year's ITT Conditions of Contest. SUBMIT SYSTEMS: "Each partnership must submit an ACBL Convention Card and Descriptions of any method being played under either the ACBL MidChart or SuperChart to Memphis...prior to June 10, 1999 (in addition, it may be a pair's advantage to submit full system notes at the tournament, for use by the Appeals Committee)...Teams not submitting convention Cards and methods prior to the start of the tournament may be penalized by restricting permitted methods to those authorized by the General Chart and/or removing seeding rights." (P 5) KNOW YOUR SYSTEM: "Players are expected to know their system, especially early in the bidding. If it is determined that the opponents have been disadvantaged by ambiguous or differing explanations, score adjustments may be applied within the limitations of ACBL regulations." (P 5) "NO DUMPING" PROVISION: "Playing in a manner to advance the interest of your opponent is against the proprieties of the ITT and is subject to discipline".(P 7) --------------------------------------------------------------------- STATEMENT OF PHILOSOPHY: ITT APPEALS The appeals process at these 1999 trials is committed to the ACBL code of laws will be applied fairly and evenly in all appeal cases heard, but an equally important consideration will be the long-run best interest of the game of bridge. While winning is important, it is not the only consideration. Players are expected to conduct themselves at the table with the utmost respect for the game and for their opponents' rights. The ITT Appeals Committee will bend over backwards to be sympathetic to players who embody these standards, but will equally look with disfavor on those who disregard them. Central to our thinking is the concept of Active Ethics: was a player trying to do the ethically proper thing at the table (was the player's "heart in the right place"). To be Actively Ethical is the expected norm -- not the admired exception. We consider an appeal to be a serious matter, reflecting the appellants' belief in the rightness of their cause. It is not to be undertaken routinely or lightly, in the hope that a possible advantage may be gained. Consistent with this belief any appeal, once filed, may be heard, at the discretion of the Directors or the Appeals Committee, even if an attempt is later made to withdraw it due to the "state of the match." The players and teams involved will remain liable for possible penalties and/or score adjustments. Partnerships are expected to know their system, conventions and treatments as they apply in all reasonably foreseeable situations, and to properly Alert and disclose them to their opponents. Failure to do so will result in warnings or possible procedural penalties, at the discretion of the Directors and/or Appeals Committee. Repeated infractions will be subject to more severe penalties including, but not limited to, barring the players from using the offending methods for the duration of these trials. Players using either special carding or unusual or obstructive bidding agreements have a special ethical responsibility to make sure that their opponents aren't disadvantaged by the lack of full disclosure or improper tempo variations in either the bidding or the play. Violations will be dealt with especially harshly. We hope that everyone enjoys these trials and that the bridge is rewarding and congenial. We look forward to seeing and greeting all of you socially during these trials, but not in an appeal session. The best of luck to all of you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- NEW ITT APPEALS PROCEDURE This year the procedure for hearing appeals will be somewhat different than it has been in the past. At least for the early part of the trials, and perhaps during later stages (depending on how the procedure works), we will be using ACBL's Internet capabilities to hold appeal hearings in a "Chat Room" format. A number of players around the country have been identified and approved by ITT Appeals to serve on our committees (the timing of the hearings and the details of the process are still under development). As of this writing, the players who have agreed to participate are: Ron Gerard, Robb Gordon, Jim Hall, Bill Pollack, Paul Soloway, Walt Walvick, and Jon Wittes. (Lynn Deas is also interested, but as yet has no Internet capability.) Here is what we know so far about how the process will work. When an appeal is filed, we at the site will meet with the two pairs involved (together, if possible) and take statements of fact and any arguments the players wish presented to the committee. A written record of the hand, the annotated auction, and the information provided by the players will be prepared and resubmitted to the players, allowing them to verify its accuracy and address any points made by the other side. When acceptable to all parties, the summary will be uploaded to the ACBL server and placed in the Chat Room for use by the appeals committee members during the hearing. (The players will not be present at the hearing.) At a prearranged time, the on- site and off-site committee members will "meet" in the Chat Room and deliberate on the case. Off-site members will not be told who the players involved in the appeal are, but the on-site members will try to answer any questions that may be asked about them (e.g., "they are top-level experts," "they are many time National Champions," "this is a very experienced partnership which has played together for about X year, " etc.). If it is determined that knowledge of the players' identities is needed to reach a final resolution, the off-site members may be given that information -- when it becomes relevant. Depending at least in part, on the availability of off-site committee members, the on-site members may serve either as "presenters" or as voting committee members, as needs dictate. (One of us, Mike Aliotta, will only be present at the trials for the first four days.) An on-site committee member will serve as the "nominal" chair of any hearing and may engage in the discussion, whether or not he votes on the final decision. Once a decision is reached, it will be announced to the captains of the teams involved at the earliest opportunity. Keep in mind that the timing of the hearing is dependent on the availability of committee members in diverse parts of the country. We all hope this new procedure proves a good way of handling appeals at the ITT (and perhaps other ACBL events, as well). While we are trying to anticipate and solve potential problems before they occur, we should all bear in mind that any new process inevitably involves some initial learning curve. Rich Colker & Mike Aliotta, for ITT Appeals --------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 02:16:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:16:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA24636 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:16:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (dnas-01-35.sat.idworld.net [209.142.68.243]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07294; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:16:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <37628723.35D0C972@txdirect.net> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 11:13:23 -0500 From: "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Wolff ITT Article References: <199906121528.LAA10135@freenet3.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Did not both the director and the appeals committee rule results stand?? How many times are we going to re-Lawyer this?? Something needs to be stated to the effect that the player also needs to pay some attention to the game during the bidding and not after the lead. This smells like a bliant triple shot. -- BiigAl, Al Lochli biigal@satlug.org - biigal@txdirect.net - PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 - Phone: (210) 829-4274 From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 02:40:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:40:48 +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 CAA24741 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:40:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip29.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.29]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990612164022.ZPTV4101.fep4@ip29.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:40:22 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Booby Wolff's view of Appeals Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:40:14 GMT Message-ID: <376f8d2d.4571243@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19990612095426.00793bf0@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990612095426.00793bf0@maine.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 Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:54:26 -0400 skrev Tim Goodwin: >Anybody who has not, should read an article by Bobby Wolff which appeared ... The following seems to me to be a strange argument: Without screens, had North seen that South might not have registered the Alert he could perhaps have taken out insurance by running, ... Law 73A1 and 73B1 would be broken. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 02:40:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:40:47 +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 CAA24742 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 02:40:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip29.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.29]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990612164027.ZPUD4101.fep4@ip29.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:40:27 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wolff ITT Article Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:40:19 GMT Message-ID: <37748d5c.4617569@post.tele.dk> References: <199906121528.LAA10135@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199906121528.LAA10135@freenet3.carleton.ca> 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, 12 Jun 1999 11:28:07 -0400 (EDT) skrev A. L. Edwards: >I thought this was interesting. Thanks to the BLML member for >bringing this to our attention. (Reprinted without permission >and with apologies.) Gee thanks, I had *no* idea what to do with those red words ... Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 03:15:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:15:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24840 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:15:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from xoigoynt (p211-tnt4.akl.ihug.co.nz [216.132.188.211]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id FAA07072 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:15:30 +1200 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990613051009.007bc4a0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 05:10:09 +1200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Patrick Subject: Re: Wolff ITT Article Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would like to quote one passage from Bobby Woolf's article which I thought made very interesting reading indeed: "Without screens, had North seen that South might not have registered the Alert he could perhaps have taken out insurance by running, since his own hand was inclined in that direction anyhow." This means that Bobby Woolf is recommending that partner's demeanour in paying attention to the opponent's alerts is authorised information. In my view the re-presentation of this case after so long feels wrong somehow, but to have presented such a major piece of bad ethics as one of the key points of your argument, after having had so long to think about it, seems much worse. Patrick Carter Auckland Bridge Club N.Z.C.B.A From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 03:29:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:29:37 +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 DAA24874 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:29:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip14.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.14]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990612172914.ZHWJ16302.fep2@ip14.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:29:14 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Booby Wolff's view of Appeals Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 17:29:05 GMT Message-ID: <377e9836.7396235@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.5.32.19990612095426.00793bf0@maine.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990612095426.00793bf0@maine.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 (I'm resending my answer, as I'm afraid I forgot to substitute BLML for a personal e-mail address) Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:54:26 -0400 skrev Tim Goodwin: >Anybody who has not, should read an article by Bobby Wolff which appeared ... This is a strange argument: Without screens, had North seen that South might not have registered the Alert he could perhaps have taken out insurance by running, since his ... Law 73A1 and 73B1 would be broken. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 03:29:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:29:42 +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 DAA24880 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 03:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-230-18.s18.tnt7.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.230.18]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA05518 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:29:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000801beb4f8$ea4daa00$12e6a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 13:27:46 -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: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, June 12, 1999 5:02 AM Subject: Re: Concession after revoke > In-Reply-To: <00a101beb1fc$7a025240$90dc7ad1@hdavis> > Hirsch wrote: > > > If we have chance from the laws to manage the revoke without this > > > overcompensation-tricks we should catch it. One trick is enough. > > > > > > > This is completely wrong. Our opinion of whether or not the penalty > > called > > for by the revoke laws is "overcompensation" or not has no bearing > > whatsoever on the ruling. If we allow our personal feelings about a > > Law to > > color our rulings based on that Law, we should not be directing bridge > > games. > > Obviously if the Law admits no ambiguity the TD should not allow his > personal feelings to interfere. However, when the law admits ambiguity I > would expect any TD to rule based on his own perception of "fairness" > (hopefully explaining why he has made his ruling and advising that any > appeal would have "merit"). > > Tim West-Meads > Curious. When the Law is ambiguous, I would expect the TD to rule in favor of the non-offenders, regardless of the TDs personal feelings about whether it's "fair" to do so or not. It's up to the lawmakers to set the standards for "fairness", while the TD must attempt to apply those standards without introducing personal bias. Impossible to do in real life, of course, but IMO it's a goal the TD should be trying for. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 07:21:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:21:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from angel.algonet.se (angel.algonet.se [194.213.74.112]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA25377 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:21:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14970 invoked from network); 12 Jun 1999 23:21:33 +0200 Received: from du61-146.ppp.algonet.se (HELO algonet.se) (195.100.146.61) by angel.algonet.se with SMTP; 12 Jun 1999 23:21:33 +0200 Message-ID: <3762CE96.A84BDBE5@algonet.se> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:18:15 +0200 From: Sven-Olov Flodqvist Organization: BTkonsult 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: Booby Wolff's view of Appeals References: <3.0.5.32.19990612095426.00793bf0@maine.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Can anyone explain to me why on earth this article was written and published in the ITT Bulletin? Tjolpe Flodqvist Tim Goodwin wrote: > Anybody who has not, should read an article by Bobby Wolff which appeared > in the first Bulletin at the ACBL ITT which started yesterday. The article > appears here: > > http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/itt/99itt01.htm > > Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 07:47:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA25424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:47:31 +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 HAA25419 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 07:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10svcM-000Luh-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:47:12 +0000 Message-ID: <2G4cwpAdDoY3EwDy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 16:46:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: What is the lead penalty? References: <008401beb4cb$83bfd2e0$e6708cd4@cmartin> In-Reply-To: <008401beb4cb$83bfd2e0$e6708cd4@cmartin> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: >> The interpretation I believe to be correct is that L26A applies if the >>call fully specifies a suit or suits. You then apply the two parts to >>all suits. So if 1C=2C shows hearts and spades, and later the player >>bids spades, then L26A1 applies to spades - no lead penalties in the >>spade suit - and L26A2 applies to hearts - lead penalties in the heart >>suit. >######### I seem to recall a recent official interpretation on this list, >possibly from Grattan, that indicated that *all* such suits had to be >specified before L26A1 applied. Thus, in your example, the failure to >specify hearts would permit lead penalties in both hearts and spades. >Perhaps, Grattan or somebody who has kept a BLML archive could clarify this? >############ The interpretation to which you refer was at an EBU panel TD weekend, and you have misunderstood it. It was that all suits had to be specified before L26A applied. Thus if 1C=2C shows H+S then L26A applies: if 1C=2C shows H+minor then L26B applies. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 10:21:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:21:43 +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 KAA25587 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sy1a-000Kfc-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:21:24 +0000 Message-ID: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:53:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Helping TDs with the basics MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Recently there was a suggestion that I might put articles on my web site to try and help the average TD. It is an interesting suggestion, and fits in with various other things I have done or am doing. I have a been asked to write a booklet on how to approach Tournament Direction in clubs though that has not got very far. I do answer a lot of questions and it would be sensible to keep some of the answers. Actually, there is a lady in Hong Kong who lurks on this list who asked me a couple of easy questions. Something like "How do you apply the Laws on UI?" and "How do you go about getting facts in various types of cases?" and so on. It took hours to work out answers, and probably I should have kept the answers and posted them to my site. [Perhaps she could send them back? How did your TD exam go?] One problem is that I have difficulty writing unless someone gives me a problem or situation: then I can always write about the answer. So what I am doing here is asking you: what sort of articles do you think would be useful for a special section designed to help TDs with their basic approach, and suitable throughout the world? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 10:21:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA25596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:21:42 +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 KAA25586 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 10:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10sy1a-000Kfa-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 00:21:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:44:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wolff ITT Article References: <199906121528.LAA10135@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199906121528.LAA10135@freenet3.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: > What's Missing? My Side: > Now here is what I think should have been focused on and >what the Committee missed. One wonders whether Bobby attended the AC meeting: if so why did he not tell them what they had missed in his opinion? Or was this one of the ACBL's new super-duper appeals designed to avoid getting adequate information? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 11:14:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:14:27 +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 LAA25698 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:14:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-120.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.120]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA28602 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:14:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <376306B9.7458D897@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:17:45 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" 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: Helping TDs with the basics References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: So > what I am doing here is asking you: what sort of articles do you think > would be useful for a special section designed to help TDs with their > basic approach, and suitable throughout the world? I'll just put in my pet bother: Fact-finding. An article on the specific methods of fact-finding, who to talk to, what sorts of questions to ask and when to ask them -- it would be very helpful to some of the directors I deal with. --JRM > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 11:52:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA25797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:52:36 +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 LAA25792 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:52:29 +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 SAA23980 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:52:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <014501beb53f$5edd96a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 18:49:40 -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: > > Recently there was a suggestion that I might put articles on my web > site to try and help the average TD. It is an interesting suggestion, > and fits in with various other things I have done or am doing. I have a > been asked to write a booklet on how to approach Tournament Direction in > clubs though that has not got very far. I do answer a lot of questions > and it would be sensible to keep some of the answers. > > Actually, there is a lady in Hong Kong who lurks on this list who > asked me a couple of easy questions. Something like "How do you apply > the Laws on UI?" and "How do you go about getting facts in various types > of cases?" and so on. It took hours to work out answers, and probably I > should have kept the answers and posted them to my site. [Perhaps she > could send them back? How did your TD exam go?] > > One problem is that I have difficulty writing unless someone gives me > a problem or situation: then I can always write about the answer. So > what I am doing here is asking you: what sort of articles do you think > would be useful for a special section designed to help TDs with their > basic approach, and suitable throughout the world? > I think the first step is for TDs to join BLML. I have recommended this to many, not in a critical way at all, and usually they seem enthusiastic about the idea. But they don't join. Having got hold of the e-mail addresses of all ACBL TDs with e-mail, I wrote to theml encouraging participation in BLML. There don't seem to be many who did, unless they are just lurking. Not only should TDs join the group, but ACBL Laws Commission members (is Karen Allison the only one?), everyone on the NABC Appeals Committee, and members of the Competition & Convention Committee should be participating, at least those who have e-mail. I don't see how they can possibly do their jobs without discussing the Laws and regulations with a large community of persons sharing an interest in them. Maybe they do talk among themselves, but if so the evidence is that this is not sufficient. Chip Martel, Rich Colker, Ron Gerard, where are you? The NABC Appeals casebooks are also sources of instruction (after a little filtering), but the majority of TDs don't get them. I'm not qualified to answer David's question, but others will no doubt do so. It's obvious that quality instruction is needed but is not being provided. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 13:44:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA25981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:44:37 +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 NAA25976 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:44:28 +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; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:42:57 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <014501beb53f$5edd96a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:32:08 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:49 PM -0400 6/12/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >It's obvious that quality instruction is needed but is not being >provided. I just popped over to the ACBL web site, where I found one page on the TD exam which listed the recommended study materials, and suggested that when one thinks one is ready to take the test, one should contact one's unit secretary, who should assign a monitor for it. Beyond that, so far as I know, the only TD "training" available to me is the course given at NABCs - and I'm not inclined to go to an NABC just for that. I also checked my unit (112) and district (4) web sites, and found nothing about TD training at either one. A deplorable state of affairs. :-) 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/AwUBN2MpDL2UW3au93vOEQJLMgCfWtIUDvvHm45GmvnMZNQbCtaXdcEAoMph 4Uiz5ge6jbQQp19dzQ4iCOJv =juQs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 14:01:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA26011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:01:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.18]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA26006 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 14:01:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (ip77.kansas-city4.mo.pub-ip.psi.net [38.27.35.77]) by goose.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09930 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 21:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990612225236.00a01d30@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:00:59 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics In-Reply-To: References: <014501beb53f$5edd96a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I just popped over to the ACBL web site, where I found one page on the TD >exam which listed the recommended study materials, and suggested that when >one thinks one is ready to take the test, one should contact one's unit >secretary, who should assign a monitor for it. Beyond that, so far as I >know, the only TD "training" available to me is the course given at NABCs - >and I'm not inclined to go to an NABC just for that. That's correct. I just took (and passed) the club directors' exam after no formal training. I would have liked to take the NABC exam but have never been able to work it in. BTW, BLML was one of the reasons I scored as well as I did. Naturally, my first directing assignment was as a fill-in at a game I was committed to playing in (my partner drove in from another city), and it was a 9 1/2-table roving Mitchell. After that start, everything should be easy. All went well (we didn't have to hand-score in like the previous week). My first ruling came at my own table (insufficient bid by LHO). Thanks everyone. Count me in as willing to both teach and (mostly) learn. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net -- NOTE NEW ADDRESS Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading bearcat on OKB From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 15:23:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA26154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:23:59 +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 PAA26149 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 15:23:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-18.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.48]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA01889; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3763417E.ED2C884C@pinehurst.net> Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:28:31 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Reppert CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Might I suggest that if you live in Rochester, NY which your address suggests that you try to make arrangements for Edith McMullin to come to one of your tournaments and present her director's course. It is as good the course one could take at the Nationals which Roger and Millard (both outstanding directors) present and also very much fun, and she also talks about increasing your club attendance. It is great and then whenever you attend a tournament Edith is involved in you can direct in her area under her tutelage. She is also responsible for EasyBridge which is a great course for non bridge players. Edith is responsible for the ACBL Novice program which has flourish over the past 15 or so years. She is outstanding!!! You can contact me for any info I might be able to help you with. I took her course many years ago and it is far superior to taking the standard ACBL true/ false quiz. Nancy Ed Reppert wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 9:49 PM -0400 6/12/99, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >It's obvious that quality instruction is needed but is not being > >provided. > > I just popped over to the ACBL web site, where I found one page on the TD > exam which listed the recommended study materials, and suggested that when > one thinks one is ready to take the test, one should contact one's unit > secretary, who should assign a monitor for it. Beyond that, so far as I > know, the only TD "training" available to me is the course given at NABCs - > and I'm not inclined to go to an NABC just for that. > > I also checked my unit (112) and district (4) web sites, and found nothing > about TD training at either one. > > A deplorable state of affairs. :-) > > 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/AwUBN2MpDL2UW3au93vOEQJLMgCfWtIUDvvHm45GmvnMZNQbCtaXdcEAoMph > 4Uiz5ge6jbQQp19dzQ4iCOJv > =juQs > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 16:16:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:16:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from gulik.iag.net (mailhub2.iag.net [204.27.210.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA26225 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:16:38 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:16:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4097 invoked from network); 13 Jun 1999 06:16:17 -0000 Received: from pm02-081.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.81) by gulik.iag.net with SMTP; 13 Jun 1999 06:16:17 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990613021430.0dd7b66e@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: Wolff ITT Article Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > So, what do you think? >--------------------------------------------------------------------- My first 2 words to say here. OH BOY. Zero Tolerance means accepting TD's and AC's FINAL ruling and move one. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 16:21:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:21:09 +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 QAA26242 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:21:02 +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 XAA27722 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01ad01beb564$e2b19b00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 7 Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:20:41 -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 This was Appeal No. 9 in the NABC Daily Bulletin, but No. 7 in the casebook, *Looped in Chicago." The numbering system is different because the casebook groups cases by types (tempo, MI, etc.) Subject: Tempo Event: Red Ribbon Pairs, 29 July 98, first final session None vulnerable Dealer South NORTH S- J 10 4 3 2 H- 7 6 4 D- A 10 6 C- 4 2 S- Q S- K 9 6 H- Q 10 9 5 2 H- 8 3 D- J 8 3 D- K Q 9 7 4 C- 10 9 6 5 C- A Q 3 S- A 8 7 5 H- A K J D- 5 2 C- K J 8 7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - - 1NT Pass 2H(1) Pass 3D(2) Pass 3S(3) Pass 4S All Pass (1) Announced; transfer to spades (2) Alerted (3) Break in tempo The Facts: 4 made four, plus 420 for N/S. North broke tempo before he bid 3. At the end of the auction North explained that 3 showed four-card spade support, a doubleton diamond, and a maximum. The Director ruled that there had been a break in tempo and that the 4 bid would not be allowed. The contract was changed to 3 made four, plus 170 for N/S. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South and East attended the hearing. South said that his was by no means a practiced partnership.He thought that had his partner not been interested in game, he would have re-transferred by bidding 3 and then passing 3. He interpreted his partner's 3 bid as invitational. He acknowledged that there was a short break in tempo. He claimed that his 3 bid showed only four spades and two diamonds, not necessarily a maximum. East stated that North had admitted at the table that they had no such agreement that 3 was invitational. He added that North said that his understanding of their partnership agreement was that the 3 bid showed a maximum as well as four trumps and a doubleton diamond. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that once South showed a maximum notrump opening with four spades and a doubleton diamond, he had told his whole story. Without a clear understanding that 3 was encouraging by North, South's decision to accept his own invitation to game might have been influenced by his partner's break in tempo. The Committee was in agreement that pass was a logical alternative to South's 4 bid. The Committee considered a split decision possibly awarding E/W minus 420. However they determined that minus 170 was an E/W result that was very likely and would probably occur about 80% of the time. The contract was changed to 3 made four, plus 170 for N/S. When the players were called back, South accepted the Committee's explanation and decision in an exemplary manner. It was also explained that had his partner bid 3 in tempo, and had he then wished to "take a shot," no one would have questioned him. Once the break in tempo took place he was no longer allowed to be brilliant. The Committee commended both players for good conduct during the appeal. Committee: Gail Greenberg (chair), Phil Becker, Harvey Brody, Corinne Kirkham, Lou Reich -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------------------------------- No one on the casebook panel except Rich Colker questioned the Committee's thoughts about possibly assigning -420 to E/W along with N/S's +170. In fact Wolff endorsed that idea, as "an easy decision, instead of Committees opening up a candy store for appeal bringers." All other panelists endorsed the decison, as well they should. Read the Committee reasoning carefully: They seem to be under the common misapprehension in ACBL-land that E/W should be asssignd a score that was "likely," rather than the *the most favorable result* that was likely. If the 80% was 40%, E-W are still supposed to get -170. Besides, if the "irregularity had not occurred" 3S would have been passed. Not only is -170 the most favorable result that was likely in the absence of the irregularity, it was the only possible result (assuming the bidding did not affect the defense). To even consider -420 shows that the L12C2 language is confusing to some, but I don't know how the wording could be improved. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 16:39:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:39:19 +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 QAA26283 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:39:12 +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 XAA29603 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01c401beb567$6c8b9ae0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Looped in Chicago X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:38:52 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I seem to remember being sharply corrected when I wrote some time ago that the Chicago casebook would be out before Reno's, which might not come out at all. No, I was told, all three NABC 1998 Appeals cases will be covered in one book. Ahem, the Chicago casebook is out and no sign of Reno's. It seems that the BoD changed its mind about the single book. *Looped in Chicago* contains only 21 cases from the Chicago NABC, which presumably means that there were only that many, good I suppose. Those published in the Chicago NABC Daily Bulletin number just nine, viewable on the Federation Suisse de Bridge website (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appealse.html) As usual for the summer NABC casebook, appeals from the ITT are included (four). To fill out the book and provide some added interesting material, seven cases from the 1998 World Bridge Championships are also included, and one case from the Canadian National Team Championship. Although many of the cases have been already been discussed in detail on BLML, I found the casebook to be very enjoyable and instructive reading, its 174 pages a good bargain for the price (about $12, from the ACBL). Editor Rich Colker does a fine job, and Ron Gerard's comments alone would make a good book. -- Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 16:49:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA26312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:49:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (root@proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com [204.210.0.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26307 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:49:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt091n6c.san.rr.com [204.210.47.108]) by proxyb1-atm.san.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA00638; Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:49:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01e901beb568$d50edd60$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 23:43:57 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > I just popped over to the ACBL web site, where I found one page on the TD > exam which listed the recommended study materials, and suggested that when > one thinks one is ready to take the test, one should contact one's unit > secretary, who should assign a monitor for it. Beyond that, so far as I > know, the only TD "training" available to me is the course given at NABCs - > and I'm not inclined to go to an NABC just for that. > > I also checked my unit (112) and district (4) web sites, and found nothing > about TD training at either one. > > A deplorable state of affairs. :-) > > The ACBLScor program's Tech files have some instructional material. The topic of TD deportment in handling director calls looks pretty good to me. There's other stuff too, but I don't know if anyone reads it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 22:56:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:56:32 +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 WAA27029 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:56:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.119.23]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5C3A for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:55:31 +0100 Message-ID: <006401beb59c$405cc5e0$17778cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Fw: What is the lead penalty? Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:45:57 +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: >David Martin wrote: >>DWS wrote: > >>> The interpretation I believe to be correct is that L26A applies if the >>>call fully specifies a suit or suits. You then apply the two parts to >>>all suits. So if 1C=2C shows hearts and spades, and later the player >>>bids spades, then L26A1 applies to spades - no lead penalties in the >>>spade suit - and L26A2 applies to hearts - lead penalties in the heart >>>suit. > >>######### I seem to recall a recent official interpretation on this list, >>possibly from Grattan, that indicated that *all* such suits had to be >>specified before L26A1 applied. Thus, in your example, the failure to >>specify hearts would permit lead penalties in both hearts and spades. >>Perhaps, Grattan or somebody who has kept a BLML archive could clarify this? >>############ > > The interpretation to which you refer was at an EBU panel TD weekend, >and you have misunderstood it. It was that all suits had to be >specified before L26A applied. Thus if 1C=2C shows H+S then L26A >applies: if 1C=2C shows H+minor then L26B applies. > ########## With all due respect to DWS, I remember the EBU panel TD weekend and most certainly have not misunderstood that issue (which, as he correctly states, addressed the definition of specification in order to determine when L26A applied rather than L26B). Indeed, there was even a long debate on this list about exactly this issue in September last year during which Grattan wrote: ++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both 'suit' and 'suits'. If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. This question was raised in 1987 (by Max Bavin) and clarified with EK before we conducted our seminars on the new (1987) laws. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ What I was referring to above was something that I recall seeing fairly recently (ie. within the last year) that addressed the applicability of L26A1 and L26A2 when only some of the suits specified by a withdrawn call had been specified in some other way. I remember that the conclusion surprised me at time because I had previously held DWS's view on this matter. Unless Grattan or someone else can confirm my recollection, I shall return to ruling in the manner advocated by DWS. ############# From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 22:56:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA27041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:56:37 +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 WAA27031 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 22:56:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.119.23]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5C67 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:55:55 +0100 Message-ID: <006a01beb59c$4efece40$17778cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Fw: What is the lead penalty? Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 13:57:33 +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: >David Martin wrote: >>DWS wrote: > >>> The interpretation I believe to be correct is that L26A applies if the >>>call fully specifies a suit or suits. You then apply the two parts to >>>all suits. So if 1C=2C shows hearts and spades, and later the player >>>bids spades, then L26A1 applies to spades - no lead penalties in the >>>spade suit - and L26A2 applies to hearts - lead penalties in the heart >>>suit. > >>######### I seem to recall a recent official interpretation on this list, >>possibly from Grattan, that indicated that *all* such suits had to be >>specified before L26A1 applied. Thus, in your example, the failure to >>specify hearts would permit lead penalties in both hearts and spades. >>Perhaps, Grattan or somebody who has kept a BLML archive could clarify this? >>############ > > The interpretation to which you refer was at an EBU panel TD weekend, >and you have misunderstood it. It was that all suits had to be >specified before L26A applied. Thus if 1C=2C shows H+S then L26A >applies: if 1C=2C shows H+minor then L26B applies. > ########## With all due respect to DWS, I remember the EBU panel TD weekend and most certainly have not misunderstood that issue (which, as he correctly states, addressed the definition of specification in order to determine when L26A applied rather than L26B). Indeed, there was even a long debate on this list about exactly this issue in September last year during which Grattan wrote: ++++ In Law 26 the words "specified suit or suits" are to be read as a single statement. That is, 'specified' refers to both 'suit' and 'suits'. If the suits are not all specified 26B applies. This question was raised in 1987 (by Max Bavin) and clarified with EK before we conducted our seminars on the new (1987) laws. ~~ Grattan ~~ ++++ What I was referring to above was something that I recall seeing fairly recently (ie. within the last year) that addressed the applicability of L26A1 and L26A2 when only some of the suits specified by a withdrawn call had been specified in some other way. I remember that the conclusion surprised me at time because I had previously held DWS's view on this matter. Unless Grattan or someone else can confirm my recollection, I shall return to ruling in the manner advocated by DWS. ############# From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 13 23:54:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:54:55 +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 XAA27236 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:54:44 +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 JAA08565 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 09:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA11108; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 09:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 09:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906131354.JAA11108@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >>I just popped over to the ACBL web site, where I found one page on the TD >>exam which listed the recommended study materials, and suggested that when >>one thinks one is ready to take the test, one should contact one's unit >>secretary, who should assign a monitor for it. Beyond that, so far as I >>know, the only TD "training" available to me is the course given at NABCs - >>and I'm not inclined to go to an NABC just for that. > >That's correct. I just took (and passed) the club directors' exam after no >formal training. I would have liked to take the NABC exam but have never >been able to work it in. > >BTW, BLML was one of the reasons I scored as well as I did. Naturally, my >first directing assignment was as a fill-in at a game I was committed to >playing in (my partner drove in from another city), and it was a 9 >1/2-table roving Mitchell. After that start, everything should be easy. All >went well (we didn't have to hand-score in like the previous week). My >first ruling came at my own table (insufficient bid by LHO). > >Thanks everyone. Count me in as willing to both teach and (mostly) learn. > This is one area where I think beginning directors (and me!) could use help--movements. I ran my first Howell without ever having played in one; in my fifth assignment, I ran a two section, eight table relay/byestand mitchell with the relay between 1&8, and the byestand between 5&6 (hint: this is wrong! :-)). There were three other directors playing, and not one bothered to tell me the movement was wrong (although all three later told me they thought "something" was wrong--gee, thanks, guys! :-)) One good thing came out of this: I did learn how to factor! A few weeks later (no, I didn't get fired) I was charged with running a 22 table swiss teams. Now, I had run (smaller) chess tournaments, and had helped run a couple of swisses, so I had an idea of what to do. However, no-one had ever told me that I had to be polite to the players when they asked me (stupid) questions while I was doing the assignments. One of the top players in the club came to me and asked, is it the 30 or 20 vp scale? I told her 30; she asked why did I choose 30? I said because everyone else does. She said I think you should play 20, can you change it? I said sorry, no (I was half-way finished scoring the 1st round); she then started to explain to me why she thought 20 was better than 30 when, buried under paperwork and responsibility, I snapped " Why are you wasting my time? Please leave me alone!". An instructive error: never be rude to the player who has the club manager as partner. :-) No-one had ever told me that it is better to be a little late and pleasant than on time and nasty. (This player later decided that her only recourse was to appoint herself my secretary during swisses, for which I have been very gratefull--she has the fastest pencil I have ever seen!) It's little things like this which beginning directors can use. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 12:35:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:35:02 +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 MAA29831 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:34:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip10.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.10]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990613220058.FXCT15236.fep1@ip10.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:00:58 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 66 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 00:00:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37650b7e.1150324@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 MAA29833 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:00:28 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Siegmund wrote: >>May declarer inspect dummy's last played card without exposing it to the >>defenders, or not? > > No, it is not his card. I agree. But just to confuse the issue, let me call attention to: (a) L20C2, in which the words "at his first turn to play" is widely accepted to include declarer's play from dummy (the EBL "Commentary" on the 1987 Laws by Endicott & Hansen says that it does include play from dummy), and (b) L64A, where one of the standard misinterpretations is to consider the words "was won by the offending player" to also cover tricks won in dummy when declarer was the offending player. I think it might be a good idea for some later revision of the laws to state explicitly whether dummy and declarer are considered separate entities in each such case. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 12:34:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:34:22 +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 MAA29824 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:34:14 +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; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:38:43 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01e901beb568$d50edd60$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:31:59 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Cc: "Ed Reppert" , Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:43 AM -0400 6/13/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >The ACBLScor program's Tech files have some instructional material. >The topic of TD deportment in handling director calls looks pretty >good to me. There's other stuff too, but I don't know if anyone >reads it. So I understand. But I'm not running a club, and won't anytime soon, and I'm _not_ going to pay $150 for a computer program of limited use to me. Besides, I don't own a PC. :-) 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/AwUBN2PQ0b2UW3au93vOEQIQAQCgjifR2XfGPTy29UsQWqLPTq5EPAQAoNp2 fGQZgYCUEIkf6/0r4gnUJhXN =8cj/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 12:39:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:39:42 +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 MAA29856 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:39:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tFbj-000Grq-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:08:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:02:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <014501beb53f$5edd96a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Hash: SHA1 > >At 9:49 PM -0400 6/12/99, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>It's obvious that quality instruction is needed but is not being >>provided. > >I just popped over to the ACBL web site, where I found one page on the TD >exam which listed the recommended study materials, and suggested that when >one thinks one is ready to take the test, one should contact one's unit >secretary, who should assign a monitor for it. Beyond that, so far as I >know, the only TD "training" available to me is the course given at NABCs - >and I'm not inclined to go to an NABC just for that. I have obtained the recommended study materials [yes, I want to be an ACBL Club Director!] and it would be *very* difficult to learn anything from them. You get "Duplicate Decisions", a book equivalent to the EBL TD guide, a good book [subject to some flaws] on what to do with particular Laws. However, it is a work of reference rather than a book for study. You also get "Duplicate Bridge Direction", which tells the Club Director in detail how to run tournaments. Heavy reading, but quite good. Well over half of it is about movements, and none about going to the table. You get the "ACBL 1999 Handbook of Rules and Regulations". Another goldmine, but no help in learning how to direct. That leaves the "Club Director's Study Packet" which presumably is the thing that teaches you how to direct! Well, it does not mention rulings at all! In fact, it is just a simpler version of the above books, giving advice on Regulations, scoring , and so on. It ends with a sample Club test and answers and errata. Wonderful! In my view, the ACBL's study materials are designed to help the budding Director in running a bridge club, but is little help in telling him how to give rulings. The sample test, however, most unfairly, includes several rulings! Do you think I am going to pass the real test? -- 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 Jun 14 12:47:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA29879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:47:43 +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 MAA29874 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:47:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tFbj-0003VJ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 19:07:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 12:11:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 7 References: <01ad01beb564$e2b19b00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01ad01beb564$e2b19b00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >Read the Committee reasoning carefully: They seem to be under the >common misapprehension in ACBL-land that E/W should be asssignd a >score that was "likely," rather than the *the most favorable result* >that was likely. If the 80% was 40%, E-W are still supposed to >get -170. Besides, if the "irregularity had not occurred" 3S would >have been passed. Not only is -170 the most >favorable result that was likely in the absence of the irregularity, >it was the only possible result (assuming the bidding did not affect >the defense). To even consider -420 shows that the L12C2 language is >confusing to some, but I don't know how the wording could be >improved. I doubt that the language is the problem. To learn to apply the Laws of the game requires training, guidance and reading. If the Committee had sat with a Law book in front of each of them and read the Law I doubt they would have got it wrong: it is clear enough. Just consider the number of posts here based on mis-reading the Law, ie quoting it from memory rather than actually reading it at the time. I am certainly guilty of that from time to time. It would be better if the expert commentators pointed out this sort of flaw: that is the way to teach future ACs. -- 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 Jun 14 13:05:10 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:05:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from corinna.its.utas.edu.au (root@corinna.its.utas.edu.au [131.217.10.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29901 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:05:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [131.217.55.82] (purcell.chem.utas.edu.au [131.217.55.82]) by corinna.its.utas.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23395 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:04:39 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199906121528.LAA10135@freenet3.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:06:07 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Mark Abraham Subject: Re: Wolff ITT Article Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > What's Missing? My Side: > Now here is what I think should have been focused on and >what the Committee missed. South had a hand which would not play well >in 1NT doubled, being suit oriented as it was. So why did he pass when he had a running action available? The only answer is that he was not prepared to run from a strong double, or if he observed the previous pass, that he wanted to take his chances if the opponent's 11-12 balanced double struck a bad hand opposite. > If East's passed-hand >double most likely showed a club one suiter, South had the worst >possible club holding. Almost. > In addition, South may not have remembered at >the time of the double that East was a passed hand and thus not >recognized that the double would not be a strong, balanced hand. Whose fault is this? > But >even had he been aware of this, it should be remembered that South >played much of his bridge during a time (the 1950's and 60's) when a >double by a passed hand was often used to show a maximum pass (11-12 >HCP in a balanced hand). Thus, it was wrong to hold him responsible >for knowing that such a double in the modern game would not show >that type of hand. There is no question of "holding him responsible for knowing". EW failed to alert properly. The Director and AC ruled that there was no consequent damage, since South is still expected to observe that the hand doubling has already passed, and thus there may be an unusual meaning to the double. Personally I would be inclined to find that there was damage. I find the above argument about 50s and 60s style of play flawed. South said "he considered bidding over the double even without the Alert". If South was acting under the presumption that this passed hand double was a maximum pass in a balanced hand then why did he consider running from the double? How did he consider running and pass quickly? > Now consider North. He remembers being told by East that his >passed-hand double showed clubs. Once the double came around to him he >should have been able to act, confident that South had been properly >Alerted to the likely meaning of East's double. Now what about the >ethics involved in North running when he suspects South did not >consider West's Alert before passing? How can he suspect? Screens are in place. Partner could hold Ax AJx QJx KQTxx. > We need to consider some of >these ethical chestnuts and make a determination. Otherwise, the >ethical players will always get the worst of it and the others will >continue to take advantage. Without screens, had North seen that South >might not have registered the Alert he could perhaps have taken out >insurance by running, since his own hand was inclined in that >direction anyhow. As other readers have posted - why is this AI? > But assuming that South had properly been told the >likely meaning of the double, North decided not to overrule his >partner's decision to sit, even though his hand suggested a >problem. North believes he was denied the opportunity to exercise his >judgment. How? He knows South chose not to run having received a correct Alert and explanation. His fragments in a 5-count opposite partner's presumed club holding will play adequately. A bid by North is a double-shot if North suspects or knows that South did not receive the Alert. > Finally, West had an obligation to Alert properly by not >only saying "Alert," but also by tapping the blue Alert strip to >insure that his screenmate registered the Alert. His recognition that >South was probably not aware of the Alert, witnessed by his >volunteering a second Alert of sorts, came too late after he had >already passed and the tray had gone to the other side of the screen. >Both the Director's ruling and the Committee's decision >ignore West's culpability in this matter. They found that West did fail to Alert properly. The question is not West's "culpability" but whether the Director and AC's judgement that damage was not consequent (or may have been contributed to by other sources) is correct. > It is not the right message >to send not to adjust E/W's score, since South clearly would have run >had he been given the right information from a proper Alert. Personally, I agree. >This should have been done, even if N/S were judged not to deserve >redress. I consider Bobby's arguments here and on previous occasions to be somewhat lacking in basis in fact & law. A player of his status who champions ethical action should be careful not to tarnish his image by arguing weakly in a public forum, long after the fact, about a decision that appears to have been adverse, without having exhausted his means of conventional appeal. Mark Abraham From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 14:26:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA29999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:26:28 +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 OAA29994 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:26:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10tOK5-000JQx-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:26:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 05:24:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > I have obtained the recommended study materials [yes, I want to be an >ACBL Club Director!] I already am one. Beat you. hehehe > Do you think I am going to pass the real test? > > No chance. You know the Laws. hehehe -- 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 Jun 14 14:35:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA00146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:35:12 +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 OAA00137 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:35:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tCvd-0006nz-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 13 Jun 1999 16:16:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 17:15:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics In-Reply-To: <199906131354.JAA11108@freenet5.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906131354.JAA11108@freenet5.carleton.ca>, "A. L. Edwards" writes snip >This is one area where I think beginning directors (and me!) could use >help--movements. I ran my first Howell without ever having played >in one; in my fifth assignment, I ran a two section, eight table >relay/byestand mitchell with the relay between 1&8, and the byestand >between 5&6 (hint: this is wrong! :-)). The EBU movements manual has the standard fix for this mistake. I don't know whether Groner does or not (though its a great little book) 5th round: Boards 1-3 are moved to proper place and table 5 plays 4-6. 5th and subsequent rounds: Sharing is between Table 1 and 2 8th round: NS pairs 1 and 5 swap places Movement saved and no factoring :)) 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 Jun 14 17:10:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:10:24 +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 RAA00302 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:10:18 +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; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:08:50 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <014501beb53f$5edd96a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 02:59:49 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:02 AM -0400 6/13/99, David Stevenson wrote: >Do you think I am going to pass the real test? _You_ are. Whether I will is another story. But with the help of this list... :-) 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/AwUBN2Sq0b2UW3au93vOEQKzDQCfVZ41ZnnjzaUU995igvfte4yVInEAn0fy CKI9pkzaYbO8xu+jkrtm1Sy2 =wiiV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 17:38:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA00385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:38:34 +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 RAA00380 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:38:27 +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; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:37:00 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199906131354.JAA11108@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:32:32 -0400 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:54 AM -0400 6/13/99, A. L. Edwards wrote: >This is one area where I think beginning directors (and me!) could use >help--movements. I ran my first Howell without ever having played >in one; in my fifth assignment, I ran a two section, eight table >relay/byestand mitchell with the relay between 1&8, and the byestand >between 5&6 (hint: this is wrong! :-) Off the top of my head, the byestand goes between tables 4&5, I think. :-) I like books. I read a lot. I recently picked up Larry Harris' _Bridge Director's Companion_ and _Director's Quick Reference Companion_. The former is an 8 1/2 x 11 inch format book of 150-200 pages (hard to tell, they're numbered by sections) of _very_ useful information. Section I is "Laws", with some general information (shuffle and cut, scoring, wrong number of cards, what is a penalty card, stuff like that), then auction irregularities, some of which are flow charts showing how to figure out what to do, then a play section with more info and flow charts, a miscellaneous section covering, among other things, the proprieties, and guidelines from _Duplicate Decisions_. Then there's a couple of "job aids", one page summaries of frequent problem areas (and one suggesting when warnings, procedural penalties, and adjustments are appropriate.) All this section is referenced to the Laws (unfortunately, the latest edition of this thing was published in 95, and so refers to the 87 Laws - which means I'm gonna have to go through it with a fine tooth comb to see where the 97 changes affect it.) The second section is on pair movements, the third on team movements. Section II has "movements at a glance, a section on rationale for choosing movements, and a "how to use it." Well laid out, easy to understand and use.Then there's "how to factor", with charts, how to add a late pair to a full-table Howell, or to add a complete table, how to correct for a misplaced bye-stand , and some other general info. The second book is a distillation of the first, including rulings flow charts, some of which are marked 'show this to the players'. :-) There's also a section on how to use the ACBLScore program. The Director's Companion contains some movements for 3-5 tables called "Chalfnt" movements, named for some guy named Chalfant. The book explains why they're better than Howells, and says they were approved by the ACBL for club use in 1977. It also says they aren't supported by ACBLScore, which probably explains why my local club director never heard of them before. :-) I wonder if anybody on the list has heard of them. The book refers to _Duplicate Decisions_, which is of course part of the "study package", and to "Ruling the Game", which I've not been able to identify beyond the name. If anybody on list can identify it or its successor, I'd appreciate it. Speaking of movements, ISTR a (600 page?) book on same by some Scandinavian folks, translated into English by (I think) Barry Rigal, recently appeared in the Baron-Barclay catalog. Anyone know if that's worth getting? :-) 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/AwUBN2Sxar2UW3au93vOEQIKGgCgzWnT7lBdYx0VPvMZiksXKpR4C5YAoI49 m30PPtbOIg9evJqI2GNr2f5u =nlLv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 18:08:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:08:17 +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 SAA00424 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:08:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:05:12 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990614100542.007f8c70@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, 14 Jun 1999 10:05:42 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <378f19bc.19831426@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 20:02 10.06.99 GMT, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Thu, 10 Jun 1999 20:48:53 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: > >>Of course the non-offending side claims... > >If the offending side acquiesces, the revoke is established. > >You must be thinking of the case where NOF claims, and the claim >is not accepted. That would happen rather seldom, I suppose. No. E made a revoke (and doesnt win the trick). Than S claims instead of playing on. If S plays instead of claiming W has no chance. L63B forbids any hints. So the revoke is established only, if S plays on. So claiming might cost a trick Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 18:43:14 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:43:14 +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 SAA00471 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:42:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:40:58 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990614104130.007bd8d0@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, 14 Jun 1999 10:41:30 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: References: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id SAA00472 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:54 12.06.99 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>In article , David Stevenson >>> writes >>>> >>>> The offending side is the one that revoked. Thus we resolve any >>>>doubtful point [which card would be played first by the player >>>>conceding] in favour of the NOS: thus it is a two-trick revoke. >>>> >>>> QED. >>>> >>>at last we know which way DWS has jumped. My side of the fence! Is this >>>a first I wonder? >> >> I knew I was wrong. >> >> I no longer believe that L84D has anything to do with it. > >I actually fancy Law 84E, rather than 84D. I think the irregularity is >that the revoke is still concealed. Now I can go straight to L12A1 "in >my judgement" John What really surprises me in this case is this enthusiasm about L12A1. Well let´s examin L12A1 then. What do you need to use 12A1? L12A1: 1. Laws Provide No Indemnity The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. The particular type of violation here is a quite common one: a revoke. One of the most frequent mistakes in bridge. The words "particular type of violation" seems more like a hint that this law in only applicable when there is a violation of laws which is not covered by the rules. But a revoke is covered by the laws. Ok E hat revoked. But he didnt claim. It was his opp who claims. Another point: "indemnity" means that a player is in a disadvantage because the opps violated the laws. But: The one trick the NO-player lost by the violation he gets back. Another point: I just remarked that there are other cases where a claim can cost a trick in connection with an opps revoke. So here it is as well. The problem is if you give a two-trick penalty for this revoke you are give a player an advantage if he is claiming instead of playing on. He might get more tricks by claiming than by playing. BUT that is exactly what the laws didnt want by writing 70A. Just imagine my last case: repeated for convenience: >> N >> S x >> H - >> D x >> C - >>W E >>S Q S - >>H Q H - >>D - D Q >>C - C Q >> South >> S x >> H - >> D - >> C s >> >>decl S contr NT, S on play >>concedes all tricks >>E already revoked once in D. Won up to now no trick in D. >> >>What should happen here? >>Best way for S would be to concede all the tricks!!!! (100% shot) to play on >>(S doesnt know who helds the high cards) >>So he can be sure, that E will win the trick and he gets one trick back. If S gets a two trick penalty just because E >>>>might<<<< win a second trick, then this real unfair. And dont tell me that this case is very improbable. Next time I realize my opps revoked I will draw trumps and claim (with some words about a finesse, a squeeze...) and then will get my 2-trick penalty only if the revoker might win a trick afterwards with his revoke card. I hope you will be my TD then. Reason: NO. Only 1-trick penalty to restore equity. Richard PS: The discussion about the fictitious trick in 64A2 just shows me why this is not true. You usually cannot tell if the player will win another trick. E.g.: what will happen if E wins only a trick in the revoke suit if he is not aware (some unusual sort of endplay I guess...). Will you give two tricks? Still a pandora box. And even bigger as longer I´m thinking about..... From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 18:56:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:56:33 +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 SAA00504 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:56:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:55:03 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990614105536.00802920@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, 14 Jun 1999 10:55:36 +0200 To: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Wolff ITT Article In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19990613021430.0dd7b66e@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:16 13.06.99 +1000, Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: > >> So, what do you think? >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >My first 2 words to say here. > > >OH BOY. > Well... What a silly case. What a weak argumenting. A player that won a World Championship (1988) shall know that there might be changes in bidding style since 1950... (even if he paid his teammates...) A quick pass and a long think in the same time is not good arguing... > > >Zero Tolerance means accepting TD's and AC's FINAL ruling and move one. YES Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 18:57:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA00526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:57:41 +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 SAA00514 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:57:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:56:43 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990614105716.007a0880@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, 14 Jun 1999 10:57:16 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: UNUSUAL DILEMMA In-Reply-To: <199906092039.QAA02538@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 16:39 09.06.99 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >From: Ian D Crorie >> I agree that the Director *does* have the power to award an AAS but >> doubt that the catch-all L12A1 was intended for this situation. >> Also relevant, IMHO, is this from the "Scope and Interpretation of >> the Laws" section: >> >> A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("...dummy >> spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct >> procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. > >Nobody is talking about a penalty. We are talking about redressing >damage. What else is L12A1 for? take this to the discussion about the concession and the revoke... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 20:53:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA00766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:53:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA00761 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:53:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.144.251]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990614105541.ITJW2926.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:55:41 +1200 Message-ID: <3764DEB1.791F52A9@xtra.co.nz> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:51:29 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: L55A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk L55A If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). I had the following situation on Saturday: Declarer led out of turn and one defender wanted to accept the lead and the other wanted it retracted. How do you resolve this. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 14 22:27:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA00992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:27:46 +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 WAA00987 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:27:35 +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 IAA20071 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990614082806.006947e0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:28:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A In-Reply-To: <199906111437.KAA16225@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <3.0.16.19990611034909.33c7b988@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:37 AM 6/11/99 -0400, Ron wrote: >In my opinion they are using OBM to cope with an unfamiliar >situation. I'd bet they have *no* agrements other than the >general meaning of the 4D call. > >Prompt 4S followed by slow pass. > >What does pass show? And why should it be forcing? It is forcing because your double of 5C created a force; you should not be doubling 5C unless you're prepared to act over 5H. Why did you double 5C, when you knew the opponents weren't going to play there? It looks to me like the reason was specifically to *create* a forcing position over 5H. But it doesn't matter. This treatment of 4D (S+D) is very popular around here, and I don't know anyone who would think that you hold anything close to a minimum. Once partner bids 4S, passing 5H isn't an LA even if partner's pass wasn't forcing. >> The hesitation have infact made 6sp LESS attractive > >Nonsense. The hesitation strongly suggests that pass is not the >answer. And I've yet to see anything remotely convincing that >says to me that pass is not a LA. I know that playing with a >partner I trusted, I would not only consider pass, I'd do it. There has been much discussion of whether the huddle suggests strength or weakness. Whichever you consider more likely, it could be either. If you were really playing OBM, you would bid a fast, confident 5S, allowing partner to carry on to 6S with the extras. Committing yourself by bidding 6S raises less suspicion of OBM than would the go-either-way 5S. And I'm not sure that matters either, when you want to be in slam opposite Jxxxx/xxx/xx/xxx. 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 Jun 14 22:31:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA01024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:31:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA01018 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:31:01 +1000 (EST) 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 NAA25768; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:30:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA21205; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:30:45 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:30:43 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA17139; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:30:42 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:30:42 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199906141230.NAA17139@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L55A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Mon Jun 14 12:43:53 1999 > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:51:29 +1200 > From: wayne > X-Accept-Language: en Wayne You wrote: > Declarer led out of turn and one defender wanted to accept the lead and > the other wanted it retracted. > > How do you resolve this. > The only practical approach is to act on the first statement (acceptance or otherwise) by either defender. It might be easier to administer and easier for defenders, if one defender then the other was asked, (say) starting with player next to play to the play OOT (out of turn). However, this would cause problems where one defender made a statement before the director was called. 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 Mon Jun 14 23:30:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:30:52 +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 XAA01116 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:30:44 +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 JAA27988 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990614093122.0071a188@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:31:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics In-Reply-To: References: <199906131354.JAA11108@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:32 AM 6/14/99 -0400, Ed wrote: >... and to "Ruling the Game", which I've not been able to >identify beyond the name. If anybody on list can identify it or its >successor, I'd appreciate it. Monthly column by Brian Moran which has been appearing in the ACBL Bulletin for many years. Not clear what will happen to it now, with Brian recently deceased. 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 Jun 14 23:38:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA01144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:38:47 +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 XAA01139 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:38:40 +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 JAA28858 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990614093918.0070e8c0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:39:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L55A In-Reply-To: <3764DEB1.791F52A9@xtra.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:51 PM 6/14/99 +1200, wayne wrote: >L55A > >If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either >defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its >retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > >I had the following situation on Saturday: > >Declarer led out of turn and one defender wanted to accept the lead and >the other wanted it retracted. > >How do you resolve this. Practice around here is that whichever defender speaks first controls. If the statements are simultaneous, the one behind the LOOT controls. If neither defender speaks up (each trying to defer to the other), the hand behind the LOOT must decide. 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 Jun 15 00:15:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA03393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:15:22 +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 AAA03274 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:14:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA08818 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:14:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199906141414.KAA08818@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:14:03 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990614082806.006947e0@pop.cais.com> from "Eric Landau" at Jun 14, 99 08:28:06 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > > At 10:37 AM 6/11/99 -0400, Ron wrote: > > >In my opinion they are using OBM to cope with an unfamiliar > >situation. I'd bet they have *no* agrements other than the > >general meaning of the 4D call. > > > >Prompt 4S followed by slow pass. > > > >What does pass show? And why should it be forcing? > > It is forcing because your double of 5C created a force; you should not be > doubling 5C unless you're prepared to act over 5H. Why did you double 5C, > when you knew the opponents weren't going to play there? It looks to me > like the reason was specifically to *create* a forcing position over 5H. It's become clear that mine is a minority view. However I don't agree with anything you wrote here. In my view the double to 5C should be descriptive and make partner captain. Is there any reason that it should not be 5=0=5=3 with extra values? > But it doesn't matter. This treatment of 4D (S+D) is very popular around > here, and I don't know anyone who would think that you hold anything close > to a minimum. Once partner bids 4S, passing 5H isn't an LA even if > partner's pass wasn't forcing. Again, why? Is 4D played unlimited? 4S is *not* a free bid as several people have stated. And it can be made on a lot of relatively bad hands. Among other things it denies a cue to them. Besides partner has underwritten relative safety at the 4 level. Almost any weak hand that prefers spades to diamonds has a perfectly rational 4S call. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 01:12:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:12:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from penguin.prod.itd.earthlink.net (penguin.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.134]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03561 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from ivillage (1Cust64.tnt29.dfw5.da.uu.net [208.254.213.64]) by penguin.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA05330 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 08:12:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <4.1.19990614091808.0096a550@mail.earthlink.net> X-Sender: baresch@mail.earthlink.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:20:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Brian Baresch Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990614093122.0071a188@pop.cais.com> References: <199906131354.JAA11108@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Monthly column by Brian Moran which has been appearing in the ACBL Bulletin >for many years. Not clear what will happen to it now, with Brian recently >deceased. The latest Bulletin said that Moran had produced a lot of extra material and that they would keep running the column posthumously for "the next several months". Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading bearcat on OKB From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 01:25:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:25:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA03588 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:25:25 +1000 (EST) From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: from AlLeBendig@aol.com (3925) by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pKUFa00666 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:23:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <93f8e9c7.24967883@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:23:47 EDT Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A 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 6/14/99 7:17:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca writes: > Eric Landau writes: > > > > At 10:37 AM 6/11/99 -0400, Ron wrote: > > > > >In my opinion they are using OBM to cope with an unfamiliar > > >situation. I'd bet they have *no* agrements other than the > > >general meaning of the 4D call. > > > > > >Prompt 4S followed by slow pass. > > > > > >What does pass show? And why should it be forcing? > > > > It is forcing because your double of 5C created a force; you should not be > > doubling 5C unless you're prepared to act over 5H. Why did you double 5C, > > when you knew the opponents weren't going to play there? It looks to me > > like the reason was specifically to *create* a forcing position over 5H. > > It's become clear that mine is a minority view. However I don't > agree with anything you wrote here. > > In my view the double to 5C should be descriptive and make partner > captain. Is there any reason that it should not be 5=0=5=3 with > extra values? That is a clear expectation of the double, Ron. But why are you bothering to make that bid if you don't want input from your partner when they return to 5H?? You don't really think there is any chance of defending 5CX, do you? With a normal GOOD hand for this auction, you would pass 5C and sell to 5H if partner was willing. This is "extras" and your double expresses that. And I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be selling to 5H undoubled. Regardless of the "tank" by partner. If I were told in an AC that someone thought a pass of 5H was a LA, I suspect I would laugh at the notion. > > But it doesn't matter. This treatment of 4D (S+D) is very popular around > > here, and I don't know anyone who would think that you hold anything close > > to a minimum. Once partner bids 4S, passing 5H isn't an LA even if > > partner's pass wasn't forcing. > > Again, why? Is 4D played unlimited? Yes, it is! And these are extra values. Michaels is also playable as "unlimited". In both cases you clarify the extra strength with your follow-up action. > 4S is *not* a free bid as several people have stated. We all agree it is a "free bid" by definition. Some of us disagree if it requires many values. It was not a "forced" action. > And it can be made on a lot of relatively bad hands. If you'll use some simple math, Ron, you'll note that it is nearly impossible for partner to have the 1 count put forth as a possible hand. That would mean that the opponents with 22 HCPs AND distribution passed in first chair and opened a weak 2 in 3rd seat. Not impossible, but unlikely at best. > Among other things it denies a cue to them. Besides > partner has underwritten relative safety at the 4 level. > Almost any weak hand that prefers spades to diamonds has > a perfectly rational 4S call. In a vacuum, maybe. But this is still a voluntary bid with no certainty that the auction is going to end. And that is something one must always consider in these situations. If you hold the very weak hand, you certainly should recognize that given the parameters of a passed hand and a weak 2 bid, partner will have enough to act again. You are not really in a pressure situation in this auction. Some seem to be ignoring that "fact". Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 01:49:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA03655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:49:12 +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 BAA03649 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:49:04 +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 MAA18236 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:02:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990614114943.006a050c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:49:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A In-Reply-To: <199906141414.KAA08818@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <3.0.1.32.19990614082806.006947e0@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:14 AM 6/14/99 -0400, Ron wrote: >It's become clear that mine is a minority view. However I don't >agree with anything you wrote here. > >In my view the double to 5C should be descriptive and make partner >captain. Is there any reason that it should not be 5=0=5=3 with >extra values? It certainly could be -- you might have doubled 5C hoping to complete your description by -5H-X-P-5S, and been forced to take a view over -5H-P-P-?. But it seems far more likely that you are describing extra values in a hand that is unwilling to sell to 5H, but willing to sell to 5HX. If you hold that, you are presumptively passing captaincy to partner, and creating a forcing situation so that he can, as he did, pass it right back. (Is there any reason that it should not be 5-1-5-2 with extra values, for instance?) >> But it doesn't matter. This treatment of 4D (S+D) is very popular around >> here, and I don't know anyone who would think that you hold anything close >> to a minimum. Once partner bids 4S, passing 5H isn't an LA even if >> partner's pass wasn't forcing. > >Again, why? Is 4D played unlimited? Usually yes. Here, obviously so. You have a hand with which you want to play slam in a 5-4 fit opposite the right 3-count, or in a 5-5 fit opposite the right 1-count, so it seems rather unlikely that the 4D bidder thought he was limiting his hand. >4S is *not* a free bid as several people have stated. Sure it is, by definition (partner will get a chance to bid if you pass), albeit it may not show extra values. >And it can be made on a lot of relatively bad hands. ...on many of which 6S will be cold. >Among other things it denies a cue to them. Besides >partner has underwritten relative safety at the 4 level. >Almost any weak hand that prefers spades to diamonds has >a perfectly rational 4S call. The folks who think 6S is pressing have all given Jxxx/xxx/xxx/xxx. Yes, partner could hold that (although I'd be surprised if many partnerships would consider 4S on that mandatory, or even normal). But the fact remains that if you improve the hand even marginally (turn Dx or Cx into Sx, for example, or Dx into DJ), you are odds-on for 6S. 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 Jun 15 02:04:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:04:52 +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 CAA03871 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:04:44 +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 JAA15522; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:04:02 -0700 Message-Id: <199906141604.JAA15522@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Booby Wolff's view of Appeals In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 12 Jun 1999 09:54:26 PDT." <3.0.5.32.19990612095426.00793bf0@maine.rr.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:04:00 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Anybody who has not, should read an article by Bobby Wolff which appeared > in the first Bulletin at the ACBL ITT which started yesterday. The article > appears here: > > http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/itt/99itt01.htm > > Tim Tim, was the subject line an inadvertent typo, a deliberate commentary, a Freudian slip, or what? :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 02:17:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:17:00 +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 CAA03907 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:16:53 +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 JAA15747; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:16:12 -0700 Message-Id: <199906141616.JAA15747@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Wolff ITT Article In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:55:36 PDT." <3.0.6.32.19990614105536.00802920@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 09:16:08 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > Well... > What a silly case. > What a weak argumenting. > A player that won a World Championship (1988) shall know that there might > be changes in bidding style since 1950... (even if he paid his teammates...) That jumped out at me when I read Wolff's article. I've seen numerous tournament reports on the Vanderbilt, Spingold, international events, etc., in the 80's and 90's, where a Deutsch team made it to the finals or semifinals. Granted, Deutsch was the client and often seemed to be the weak link in the tournament reports, but it's been pointed out that you still have to play pretty damn well to get to that level, even if you're a client. Now Wolff is trying to make the case that his partner is a poor ignorant player who needs to be protected? That just made me sick. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 02:19:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:19:18 +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 CAA03928 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:19:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer ([208.250.109.243]) by mtiwmhc02.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19990614161832.ECZQ26944@oemcomputer> for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:18:32 +0000 From: "Mary Crenshaw" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Opinions, please... Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 12:17:45 -0400 Message-ID: <001301beb681$6ffc6180$03000004@oemcomputer> 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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This situation came up in a local Charity Game (club level, ACBL auspices). A friend and I have had some discussion about it, and would like it if you would give us your opinions. Only one of us was at the table, neither of us was director. Bd.32 Vul: EW Dlr: W KJ7 Q75 AQ632 K6 94 AQ108632 KJ92 10 J10974 K5 74 J103 5 A8643 8 AQ9852 Auction W N E S P 1NT 2C* 2D** P P 2S*** 3C P 3D P 3H All pass *alerted, single-suited hand (Cappelletti) **not alerted ***Before bidding, E looked at the CC, and inquired of North as to whether NS played lebensohl. North answered that they do not. Before the opening lead was made, North announced that there had been a failure to alert, and the Director was called to the table. The opening lead had not yet been made, and dummy had not been exposed. East explained the auction, and added that she had looked at N's CC before bidding 2S, and that it did not have any information pertaining to this auction. She felt her side may have been damaged. North said that they were playing all bids natural over interference, and showed the director that it said "Nat/dbl" on the card. South is a handicapped player, he has a neurological disorder, so did not have a CC available. This was an infrequent partnership, arranged on this occasion about 15 minutes before gametime, but North and South, and also East, are all experienced players. East pointed out that there had been no double, hence the statement on the card did not pertain in this auction. North stated that it was his understanding that all bids were natural over interference. The director accepted North's explanation of the sequence without questioning South, and ruled that South's 2D bid was a misbid, there was no failure to alert and no misinformation, and the result would stand. East pointed out that she would not have bid over 2D had she had the information that it was intended as a transfer. The director repeated her conclusion that there was a misbid rather than misinformation, and left the table. East felt that the director had done an incomplete job of establishing the facts, and said so. Now, we would like to know: A. Is this ruling correct? B. At the point that he becomes aware of the misunderstanding, what should North do? The result was +170 for NS, 5.42 matchpoints out of 13. Thanks! Mary From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 02:23:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:11 +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 CAA03948 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tZVU-0000fS-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:22:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:34:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 66 References: <37650b7e.1150324@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: <37650b7e.1150324@post12.tele.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 03:00:28 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > >>Siegmund wrote: >>>May declarer inspect dummy's last played card without exposing it to the >>>defenders, or not? >> >> No, it is not his card. > >I agree. >But just to confuse the issue, let me call attention to: >(a) L20C2, in which the words "at his first turn to play" is widely >accepted to include declarer's play from dummy (the EBL "Commentary" >on the 1987 Laws by Endicott & Hansen says that it does include play >from dummy), and Declarer plays someone else's cards [dummy's]. >(b) L64A, where one of the standard misinterpretations is to consider >the words "was won by the offending player" to also cover tricks won >in dummy when declarer was the offending player. > >I think it might be a good idea for some later revision of the laws to >state explicitly whether dummy and declarer are considered separate >entities in each such case. Maybe so, but I do not believe it to be ambiguous now, if read carefully. Granted it might be better if it was clear when read carelessly! -- 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 Jun 15 02:23:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:20 +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 CAA03954 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tZVY-0000g4-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:22:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:30:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Concession after revoke References: <3.0.6.32.19990614104130.007bd8d0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990614104130.007bd8d0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> 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 CAA03957 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >What really surprises me in this case is this enthusiasm about L12A1. Well >let´s examin L12A1 then. >What do you need to use 12A1? >L12A1: >1. Laws Provide No Indemnity >The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these >Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the >particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. > >The particular type of violation here is a quite common one: a revoke. One >of the most frequent mistakes in bridge. >The words "particular type of violation" seems more like a hint that this >law in only applicable when there is a violation of laws which is not >covered by the rules. But a revoke is covered by the laws. The particular situation is not covered by the Laws. It is the multiple event that is the complication. >Ok E hat revoked. But he didnt claim. It was his opp who claims. So? >Another point: >"indemnity" means that a player is in a disadvantage because the opps >violated the laws. But: The one trick the NO-player lost by the violation >he gets back. That is not the point. If he had played the hand out he might have got two tricks, he might have got one. If he had picked a card at random, and said "I am conceding, playing this card" then he might have got two tricks, he might have got one. You are giving him one trick because his action is based on his opponent's infraction. Stop thinking about declarer: think about his opponent: you are sure it is right to give him the benefit of the doubt because he revoked? >The problem is if you give a two-trick penalty for this revoke you are give >a player an advantage if he is claiming instead of playing on. He might get >more tricks by claiming than by playing. BUT that is exactly what the laws >didnt want by writing 70A. This is wrong, completely wrong. I am giving him the benefit of his opponent revoking. [s] >Next time I realize my opps revoked I will draw trumps and claim (with >some words about a finesse, a squeeze...) and then will get my 2-trick >penalty only if the revoker might win a trick afterwards with his revoke >card. I hope you will be my TD then. Next time I revoke I hope you will be m director since you do not wish to penalise me for the revoke. >PS: >The discussion about the fictitious trick in 64A2 just shows me why this is >not true. You usually cannot tell if the player will win another trick. >E.g.: what will happen if E wins only a trick in the revoke suit if he is >not aware (some unusual sort of endplay I guess...). Will you give two tricks? Why not? I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the side who did not commit any infraction: you are not. -- 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 Jun 15 02:23:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:22 +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 CAA03955 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tZVU-0000fT-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:22:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:40:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics References: <8gf+JcBDUuY3EwB4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <014501beb53f$5edd96a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I have obtained the recommended study materials [yes, I want to be an >ACBL Club Director!] and it would be *very* difficult to learn anything >from them. You get "Duplicate Decisions", a book equivalent to the EBL >TD guide, a good book [subject to some flaws] on what to do with >particular Laws. However, it is a work of reference rather than a book >for study. To be fair, I have now found a short but well written section in the middle which tells you how to 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 Tue Jun 15 02:23:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA03992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:36 +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 CAA03949 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:23:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tZVU-000At7-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:22:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:43:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics References: <199906131354.JAA11108@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >The book refers to _Duplicate Decisions_, which is of course part of the >"study package", and to "Ruling the Game", which I've not been able to >identify beyond the name. If anybody on list can identify it or its >successor, I'd appreciate it. Ruling the Game is a monthly article in the ACBL Bulletin. "My LHO revoked so the Director gave me and my partner a PP for calling her while she was playing a slam. Is this fair?" "I do not know - does she make good coffee?" Actually, it is quite good, but very low level. -- 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 Jun 15 03:09:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:09:22 +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 DAA04089 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:09:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA17597 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:09:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906141709.NAA25349@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <01ad01beb564$e2b19b00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> (mfrench1@san.rr.com) Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 7 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > The Facts: 4 made four, plus 420 for N/S. North broke tempo before > he bid 3. General note for all posters: when cutting and pasting, you will often need to manually insert S, H, D and C if they appeared as pictures in the article. (I have inserted the letters below.) > The Committee was in agreement that pass was a logical alternative to > South's 4S bid. The Committee considered a split decision possibly > awarding E/W minus 420. However they determined that minus 170 was an > E/W result that was very likely and would probably occur about 80% of > the time. The contract was changed to 3S made four, plus 170 for N/S. > No one on the casebook panel except Rich Colker questioned the > Committee's thoughts about possibly assigning -420 to E/W along with > N/S's +170. In fact Wolff endorsed that idea, as "an easy decision, > instead of Committees opening up a candy store for appeal bringers." Whatever happened to the principle that you should never do worse than you would against ethical opponnents? (Here, South probably had no unethical intent, but if South had interpreted the UI according to the committee's interpretation, E-W would have hade +170). As another point, the "candy store" comment is inappropriate because the TD had already adjusted the score to -170, and it was certainly correct for the non-offenders to call the TD (and thus get this ruling); it was the offenders who appealed. > Read the Committee reasoning carefully: They seem to be under the > common misapprehension in ACBL-land that E/W should be asssignd a > score that was "likely," rather than the *the most favorable result* > that was likely. If the 80% was 40%, E-W are still supposed to get > -170. Besides, if the "irregularity had not occurred" 3S would have > been passed. Not only is -170 the most favorable result that was > likely in the absence of the irregularity, it was the only possible > result (assuming the bidding did not affect the defense). And thus, even if the 80% was 10% (which is still enough for an LA in the ACBL), -170 was the only result that was likely if the irregularity (the 4S bid) had not occurred. -- 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 Jun 15 03:22:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:22:38 +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 DAA04153 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:22:27 +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 NAA02792 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:35:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990614132259.0070d0f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:22:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A In-Reply-To: <3765303E.7C0C45E9@mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990614082806.006947e0@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990614114943.006a050c@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:39 AM 6/14/99 -0700, John wrote: >Eric: > >You're the second to posit that 6S is on opposite some very poor hands. > >13 total tricks - two cashing aces = fewer than 12 tricks. > >Just helping... Blush. I guess I should have taken a second look at the original hand before writing that last message. I did, however, give the hand (with no mention of the huddle) to a number of good players at a bridge party over the weekend (all of whom, BTW, played this 4D bid showing S+D). Only one (out of seven) was prepared to make allowances for partner's having bid 4S without the SA (he bid 5S in the problem position). Nobody considered passing; everyone else either bid 6S in the problem position, or bid 6S directly over 5C on the previous round. In any event, I've seen nothing to talk me out of my original analysis. The double of 5C created a force. Partner is very unlikely to have been thinking of bidding 6S over 5H, as he has no idea your hand is this good. The most likely explanation for the huddle is that he is very weak and was considering a "shut up" double. So the huddle, if it suggests anything, suggests treading carefully, i.e. makes 5S more attractive relative to 6S. I no longer have Alan's original message, but I seem to recall (although nobody seems to have picked up on it) a statement to the effect that 6S was not such a good contract, but did make. That would lend some additional weight to the contention that 6S was not based on partner's huddle. IMO, if that hand had bid 5S and took a normal 11 tricks, there'd be at least as good a case for adjusting to 6S-1 based on the UI from the huddle as there is to do the opposite here, which tells me that the "demonstrably suggested" test fails. 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 Jun 15 03:27:16 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA04182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:27:16 +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 DAA04177 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:27:06 +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 KAA18209 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <031f01beb68a$f9fcf800$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:23:45 -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 This case from the *Looped in Chicago* casebook did not appear in the NABC Daily Bulletin, and is not to my knowledge published on the internet. (Still waiting for all appeals to be published, which I thought was the plan). I think it may be of interest to BLML. Flight A Pairs, 1 Aug 1998, Qualifying Session Vulnerability: N/S Dealer East S- A10 H- 10 D- A7432 C- A10543 S- 862 S- K974 H- J96 H- A8543 D- QJ86 D- 95 C- QJ9 C- K6 S- QJ53 H- KQ72 D- K10 C- 872 The bidding: West North East South - - Pass Pass Pass 1D 1H Dbl 2H 3C Pass 3NT* Pass 4C All pass * Break in tempo The Facts: 4C made four, plus 130 for N/S. The Director ruled that after the agreed break in tempo before the 3NT bid North's 4C bid was a LA that was disallowed (Law 73F1). The contract was changed to 3NT down one, plus 100 for E/W. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North stated that N/S's style was to open all 12 HCP hands. North knew the N/S assets were at most 23 HCP and he could not construct any hand for South that would produce a good play for a notrump game. His aces and shape argued for suit declaration. He thus concluded that he had no LA but to bid 4C. The Committee Decision: The Committee determined that South could hold the heart AQ and a minor-suit king-queen which would produce a play for 3NT. The likelihood that South held this perfect hand and that the suit distribution would also be friendly was deemed too remote to meet the criteria of LA. Therefore, the Committee accepted North's reasoning that pass was not a LA. North was escaping from a probable negative position to a contract that was likely to produce a plus score. The Committee decided that no player with the authorized information available to North would seriously consider passing 3NT. The Committee changed the contract to 4C made four, plus 130 for N/S. [Chairman's note: A Committee of two was empaneled with North's agreement due to severe time constraints.] Committee: Jon Brissman (chair), Dick Budd -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- I would like to quote all of Larry Cohen and Ron Gerard's comments about this case, but they are too strong for this staid forum. Well, one sentence from Gerard: "Gentlemen, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT?" He rattled off four hands for South, with 11, 10, 9, and 6(!) HCP, that would provide an excellent play for 3NT. The case is a counter to the arguments of the ACBL AC, published in *The Bridge Bulletin*, that TDs can't do as good a job as ACs when it comes to adjudicating matters having to do with bidding. On the other hand, the panelists' comments were split about 50-50 for and against the decision, with one favorable comment (Brissman's) possibly biased. An interesting angle from one panelist was that 3NT should be given the benefit of the doubt because South's hand "is strongly representative of the holding North could expect on the auction." Rich Colker knocked that down: Taking an action based on UI "cannot be permitted, regardless of the actual card holdings." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 04:04:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA04233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:04:50 +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 EAA04228 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 04:04:42 +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 OAA02657 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:17:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990614140443.007095f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:04:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 In-Reply-To: <031f01beb68a$f9fcf800$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:23 AM 6/14/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >This case from the *Looped in Chicago* casebook did not appear in >the NABC Daily Bulletin, and is not to my knowledge published on the >internet. (Still waiting for all appeals to be published, which I >thought was the plan). I think it may be of interest to BLML. > >Flight A Pairs, 1 Aug 1998, Qualifying Session >Vulnerability: N/S >Dealer East > > S- A10 > H- 10 > D- A7432 > C- A10543 > >S- 862 S- K974 >H- J96 H- A8543 >D- QJ86 D- 95 >C- QJ9 C- K6 > > S- QJ53 > H- KQ72 > D- K10 > C- 872 > >The bidding: > >West North East South > > - - Pass Pass >Pass 1D 1H Dbl >2H 3C Pass 3NT* >Pass 4C All pass > >* Break in tempo > >The Facts: 4C made four, plus 130 for N/S. The Director ruled that >after the agreed break in tempo before the 3NT bid North's 4C bid >was a LA that was disallowed (Law 73F1). The contract was changed to >3NT down one, plus 100 for E/W. > >The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North stated that >N/S's style was to open all 12 HCP hands. North knew the N/S assets >were at most 23 HCP and he could not construct any hand for South >that would produce a good play for a notrump game. His aces and >shape argued for suit declaration. He thus concluded that he had no >LA but to bid 4C. > >The Committee Decision: The Committee determined that South could >hold the heart AQ and a minor-suit king-queen which would produce a >play for 3NT. The likelihood that South held this perfect hand and >that the suit distribution would also be friendly was deemed too >remote to meet the criteria of LA. Therefore, the Committee accepted >North's reasoning that pass was not a LA. North was escaping from a >probable negative position to a contract that was likely to produce >a plus score. The Committee decided that no player with the >authorized information available to North would seriously consider >passing 3NT. The Committee changed the contract to 4C made four, >plus 130 for N/S. [Chairman's note: A Committee of two was empaneled >with North's agreement due to severe time constraints.] > >Committee: Jon Brissman (chair), Dick Budd >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >--------- > >I would like to quote all of Larry Cohen and Ron Gerard's comments >about this case, but they are too strong for this staid forum. Well, >one sentence from Gerard: "Gentlemen, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU >THINKING ABOUT?" He rattled off four hands for South, with 11, 10, >9, and 6(!) HCP, that would provide an excellent play for 3NT. > >The case is a counter to the arguments of the ACBL AC, published in >*The Bridge Bulletin*, that TDs can't do as good a job as ACs when >it comes to adjudicating matters having to do with bidding. On the >other hand, the panelists' comments were split about 50-50 for and >against the decision, with one favorable comment (Brissman's) >possibly biased. > >An interesting angle from one panelist was that 3NT should be given >the benefit of the doubt because South's hand "is strongly >representative of the holding North could expect on the auction." >Rich Colker knocked that down: Taking an action based on UI "cannot >be permitted, regardless of the actual card holdings." On the bare facts given, I would probably have voted to adjust, but I wasn't there, and if the committee ruled that passing 3NT was not an LA for this pair in this situation I will respect their decision. I am gratified that this committee was willing to state explicitly that the mere fact that one can construct a hand on which a particular call will turn out to be the winning one doesn't necessarily make that call an LA. I've not seen this stated in print before, and I've seen lots of evidence to suggest that it is not generally understood in ACBL-land. 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 Jun 15 05:20:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 05:20:16 +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 FAA04447 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 05:20:06 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (401) by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id dYLBa26546; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 15:18:07 EDT Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 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 6/14/99 2:08:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, elandau@cais.com writes: > >The case is a counter to the arguments of the ACBL AC, published in > >*The Bridge Bulletin*, that TDs can't do as good a job as ACs when > >it comes to adjudicating matters having to do with bidding. On the > >other hand, the panelists' comments were split about 50-50 for and > >against the decision, with one favorable comment (Brissman's) > >possibly biased. Kojak here. Sure hate to get into these things because they are so very opinionated. So I'll add mine. But when panelists split 50-50 or so on a committee action it would seem to me that the TDs once again proved that they do a better job than the ACs. Sure, go ahead and call me biased - but when you subtract from the AC decisions which changed the ruling those decisions where the AC could use Law 12C3 (we expected the AC to use it and change the decision but THE TD COULD NOT make the identical decision according to Law) I'd say the TDs come out ahead. Max and Grattan can remember where we often predicted (and hoped) what the AC would do, and would have done it ourselves if permitted in many cases. My main concern is that the TDs (for the most part in those tournaments in WBF where I work) know the Laws, and the ACs have members who either don't know them, or feel themselves above and not bound by them. Being an expert player does not mean being an expert on the structure of the game as promulgated in the Laws. Maybe the answer is for the TDs to be part of the "Committee" process -- along with expert players when it comes to bridge judgement. I plead with ACs in WBF to reference their decisions to the applicable Laws which sometimes helps keep them on track. It is of course my requirement that the TDs state such references in their presentation of facts, rulings, and adjustments, though they frequently get buried under painful arguments over LAs, play of the hand, what we did at our table on this hand., etc. Keep in mind that as experts, whatever we did must be the right thing, even if other experts don't agree with us. But then, if that weren't true we wouldn't have a Master Solvers' Club either, would we? On a lighter note, I wonder how many members of the various Laws Committees could pass a thorough testing review of the Laws? In my short experience of over 30 years as a TD I've seen some sorry examples of politics, egos, and ignorance at all levels. I'll bet some of them don't even own a Law book. And were the various ACs similarly tested, I shudder tot hink what the results would be. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 05:43:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA04526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 05:43:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from tst.dk (mail.tst.dk [147.29.107.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA04521 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 05:43:21 +1000 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <29570>; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:43:49 +0100 Message-Id: <99Jun14.204349gmt+0100.29570@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:43:47 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Master Points - Aims , "profits" , methods . Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id FAA04522 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This seems to have drowned in the virtual flood of messages over the last three weeks. Dany Haimovici wrote: >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 the MP-committee in DBF (Danmarks Bridgeforbund) is to stimulate interest in and enjoyment of playing for MP awards. The MP's generate 12% of DBF's total income. We have been playing for MP's since 1970. They are obligatory at national and district level, but optional at club level. Most clubs do participate, though. David Stevenson wrote: > 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. And Mike Dodson wrote: >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. In Denmark we believe that the players want fairness in the way Mike Dodson describes. Thus, the MP regulations have only been the subject of minor revisions since its inauguration 30 years ago. The most MP's won by one player in one year dates back to 1985/86 and will be almost impossible to surpass. With one exception, the MP standings are never used for seeding purposes. We look for a (future) ratingsystem much like the chessplayers system to measure actual playing strength, while the MP's reflect the players life long achievements. The one exception is, that the 16 players having won the most bronze points in the club during the season are entitled to participation in an individual with silver point awards. The MP regulations can not (yet) be found on DBF's website. All you can find right now is the actual MP-standings for all members of all participating clubs (http://www.webtrade.dk/webdbf.nsf/htmlmedia/mesterpoint.html). - Flemming Boegh-Soerensen chairman of DBF's MP-committee PS: Yes, after two years of lurking I know my responsibilities. One cat, Rose, 11 years old and afraid of the goldfish, carps and the sturgeon in the pond! Who is going to set F-BLML up? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 06:49:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:49:57 +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 GAA04725 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:49:47 +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 QAA09226 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA03399 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:49:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906142049.QAA03399@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > I am gratified that this committee was willing to state explicitly that the > mere fact that one can construct a hand on which a particular call will > turn out to be the winning one doesn't necessarily make that call an LA. > I've not seen this stated in print before, and I've seen lots of evidence > to suggest that it is not generally understood in ACBL-land. While it's not identical to the ACBL definition of LA, I would have thought the above to be a good working synonym. If you can construct an appropriate hand for partner, don't you have to "seriously consider" taking the action that will cater to it? Many of us might prefer a more permissive definition of LA (and the rest of the world uses such), but if the ACBL insists on a strict definition, it's up to the TD's and AC's to enforce it. > From: Schoderb@aol.com > My main concern is that the TDs (for the most > part in those tournaments in WBF where I work) know the Laws, and the ACs > have members who either don't know them, or feel themselves above and not > bound by them. This is a frightening assertion, but some of the appeals reports do little to refute it. > Keep in mind that as experts, whatever we did > must be the right thing, even if other experts don't agree with us. Heh! An accurate analysis, no doubt! > On a lighter note, I wonder how many members of the various Laws Committees > could pass a thorough testing review of the Laws? In my short experience of > over 30 years as a TD I've seen some sorry examples of politics, egos, and > ignorance at all levels. I'll bet some of them don't even own a Law book. And > were the various ACs similarly tested, I shudder tot hink what the results > would be. So how do we fix this? Training for AC members, at least at the national level, shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the ACBL. Or have a top director closely involved in the hearings, ready to read out and interpret the relevant laws. Not that TD training in the ACBL is perfect, either.... Maybe the problem is that enforcing the rules has simply not been a priority of the organization. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 06:54:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA04767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:54:07 +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 GAA04762 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 06:54:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegig.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.80]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01620 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990614165152.00772300@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:51:52 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990614140443.007095f4@pop.cais.com> References: <031f01beb68a$f9fcf800$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:04 PM 6/14/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >On the bare facts given, I would probably have voted to adjust, but I >wasn't there, and if the committee ruled that passing 3NT was not an LA for >this pair in this situation I will respect their decision. > >I am gratified that this committee was willing to state explicitly that the >mere fact that one can construct a hand on which a particular call will >turn out to be the winning one doesn't necessarily make that call an LA. >I've not seen this stated in print before, and I've seen lots of evidence >to suggest that it is not generally understood in ACBL-land. > Or in this forum either, at least not on a consistent basis. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 07:04:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA04802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:04:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (nz41.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.197.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04797 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:04:11 +1000 (EST) From: af06@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Received: from ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (af06@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de [129.13.114.243]) by mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tdtD-0003c7-00; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:03:31 +0200 Received: by ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA043004210; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:03:30 +0200 Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:03:30 +0200 (CES) In-Reply-To: <031f01beb68a$f9fcf800$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Jun 14, 1999 10:23:45 AM Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk According to Marvin L. French: > >This case from the *Looped in Chicago* casebook did not appear in >the NABC Daily Bulletin, and is not to my knowledge published on the >internet. (Still waiting for all appeals to be published, which I >thought was the plan). I think it may be of interest to BLML. > >Flight A Pairs, 1 Aug 1998, Qualifying Session >Vulnerability: N/S >Dealer East > > S- A10 > H- 10 > D- A7432 > C- A10543 > >S- 862 S- K974 >H- J96 H- A8543 >D- QJ86 D- 95 >C- QJ9 C- K6 > > S- QJ53 > H- KQ72 > D- K10 > C- 872 I think that passing 3NT is an LA (3NT are likely to make when partner has a C fit), but I can't see how 3NT will go down except on the lead of a small H. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 07:16:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA04925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:16:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [207.172.3.235]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA04918 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:16:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (207-172-87-58.s58.tnt6.brd.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.87.58]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27441 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:19:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002401beb6aa$ef2f42a0$3a57accf@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199906141414.KAA08818@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:14:35 -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: Ron Johnson To: Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 10:14 AM Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A > Eric Landau writes: > > > > At 10:37 AM 6/11/99 -0400, Ron wrote: [snip] > > >What does pass show? And why should it be forcing? > > > > It is forcing because your double of 5C created a force; you should not be > > doubling 5C unless you're prepared to act over 5H. Why did you double 5C, > > when you knew the opponents weren't going to play there? It looks to me > > like the reason was specifically to *create* a forcing position over 5H. > > It's become clear that mine is a minority view. However I don't > agree with anything you wrote here. > > In my view the double to 5C should be descriptive and make partner > captain. Is there any reason that it should not be 5=0=5=3 with > extra values? > Why do you think these views are mutually exclusive? The player opposite the doubler *was* made captain, as the doubler had passed the decision. If he had doubled, 5Hx would have been the contract. But he didn't. Instead, he made a pass, which IMO was forcing, sending the decision back to the player who doubled 5C. > > But it doesn't matter. This treatment of 4D (S+D) is very popular around > > here, and I don't know anyone who would think that you hold anything close > > to a minimum. Once partner bids 4S, passing 5H isn't an LA even if > > partner's pass wasn't forcing. > > Again, why? Is 4D played unlimited? > Yes. > 4S is *not* a free bid as several people have stated. What exactly do you mean by "free bid"? The player can pass and his partner will have another turn to call. Sounds like a free bid to me. There is a lot of pressure due to the leaping auction, so the free bid may be made on far less values than are normally implied by the term. > > And it can be made on a lot of relatively bad hands. > Agreed. > Among other things it denies a cue to them. Besides > partner has underwritten relative safety at the 4 level. > Almost any weak hand that prefers spades to diamonds has > a perfectly rational 4S call. > > -- > RNJ > Yes, but carry the argument further. The auction started with a weak two followed by the leap to 4D. Neither W or N really know who's doing what. N made a foolish call IMO with 5C. That gave E the chance to double, and show power (a straight 5H gives E a much harder call). At this point, E/W will play the contract, or N/S will play it doubled. This opens the opportunity for E/W to defend if W is sitting on defensive values (some sort of heart stack), which would otherwise be absent. The rest is just partnership bridge. The forcing pass marks W with values outside of hearts, and 6S looks like the right call, based on AI, not UI. The UI conveys nothing. It doesn't say whether partner was almost ready to double, or almost ready to bid on. I can't think of a call, including double, that would meet the criterion of "demonstrably suggested" on this auction. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 07:37:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:37:13 +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 HAA05016 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:37:05 +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 OAA22207; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:36:26 -0700 Message-Id: <199906142136.OAA22207@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:49:39 PDT." <199906142049.QAA03399@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:36:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > I am gratified that this committee was willing to state explicitly that the > > mere fact that one can construct a hand on which a particular call will > > turn out to be the winning one doesn't necessarily make that call an LA. > > I've not seen this stated in print before, and I've seen lots of evidence > > to suggest that it is not generally understood in ACBL-land. > > While it's not identical to the ACBL definition of LA, I would have > thought the above to be a good working synonym. If you can construct > an appropriate hand for partner, don't you have to "seriously consider" > taking the action that will cater to it? I don't think so. To take your logic to an extreme, you'd have to "seriously consider" passing AQx AQx KJx Jxxx (a routine strong 1NT opener) because partner could have a yarborough, and passing would cater to that hand. Obviously, I'm extrapolating quite a bit, but I think the same principle has to apply when dealing with UI cases. In bidding, you have to do what you think is most likely to work, since you usually can't find a call that will work with 100% of partner's possible hands. That means you may have to settle for one that works only 99% of the time. So if your choice is between call X that caters to 99% of possible hands, and call Y that caters only to a very unusual 1% subset, call Y is not a logical alternative, since no decent player would seriously consider it (the fact that a call caters to 1% of possible hands does *not*, of course, allow one to conclude that 1% of players would seriously consider the call!!). So Eric is right---his phrasing can't be used as a "working synonym" for LA. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 07:45:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:45:33 +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 HAA05041 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:45:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-161.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.161]) by smtp5.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA10920 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 17:45:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <376578C0.67ADA652@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 14:48:48 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" 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: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 References: <199906142049.QAA03399@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Eric Landau > > I am gratified that this committee was willing to state explicitly that the > > mere fact that one can construct a hand on which a particular call will > > turn out to be the winning one doesn't necessarily make that call an LA. > > I've not seen this stated in print before, and I've seen lots of evidence > > to suggest that it is not generally understood in ACBL-land. > > While it's not identical to the ACBL definition of LA, I would have > thought the above to be a good working synonym. If you can construct > an appropriate hand for partner, don't you have to "seriously consider" > taking the action that will cater to it? No. They open 4S. We play doubles here as convertible values/penalty, and partner doubles, then points at the pass cards, then at me, then shakes his head vigorously in the "No" sign. I hold x AJxx KQxx AJxx. It is not too hard to construct a layout where pass is a winner, but pass is so anti-percentage that it isn't an LA. (In the hypo I give, I would pass anyway, of course, but not so much from L16 as from attempting to ensure this partner stays far away from me.) Or, a simpler one: I pick up AKx QJTx Kxx KJx. I open 1NT, partner bids 4N, then looks and says, "My god, man, you aren't some idiot playing quantitative notrumps when I want to ask for aces and then bid the small slam for sure, are you?" I can construct a hand where passing 4N works -- QJx xx AQJxx AQx, but passing it is not an LA. My partner will doubtless end up in bridge prison for his actions, but if I bid 6N on the second one, I'll be freed by a just court. --JRM [snip competence discussion] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 07:46:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA05063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:46:44 +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 HAA05058 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:46:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from p27s01a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.161.40] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10teYk-00059t-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:46:27 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L55A Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 22:51:58 +0100 Message-ID: <01beb6b0$2011f660$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: wayne To: BLML Group Date: Monday, June 14, 1999 12:36 PM Subject: L55A >L55A > >If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either >defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its >retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > >I had the following situation on Saturday: > >Declarer led out of turn and one defender wanted to accept the lead and >the other wanted it retracted. > >How do you resolve this. As Robin has said, the approach in the UK is that the defender who speaks first, speaks for the partnership. However it depends much on how the wording has been phrased. "You're on the table", or "You're in your hand" is merely a statement of fact, and points out that an infraction has occurred. It is not necessarily a request that the errant declarer should play from the correct hand. "Please play from the correct hand" is however such a request. TD should ascertain exactly what was said when dec played from the wrong hand. My approach if there is doubt, is to ask the defs to listen carefully and not to say anything until I indicate that they should. I explain that information about the position of a particular card, gained from the resolving of the problem will be unauthorised to declarer., and I will not allow defenders to lose from any otherwise unreasoned beneficial action. I explain that either def. may accept the lead, or may require it's retraction and that whoever speaks first, speaks for the partnership."You may not consult." Now I say, "I would like one of you to tell me now, what it is that you would like dec. to do. If neither def. speaks, after about 5 secs, I say "neither def has exercised the option to accept, so I require you to play from the correct hand. "If this happens, I will allow dec to "get the finesse right!" Hope this helps. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 08:16:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:16:38 +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 IAA05092 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:16:31 +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 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:14:56 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199906131354.JAA11108@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:13:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:43 AM -0400 6/14/99, David Stevenson wrote: > Ruling the Game is a monthly article in the ACBL Bulletin. Of course. I should have remembered. > "My LHO revoked so the Director gave me and my partner a PP for >calling her while she was playing a slam. Is this fair?" > > "I do not know - does she make good coffee?" Heh. Still, I guess I should reread the few I've got - and remember to read it in future. Thanks for the reminder - and the humor. Sue and I had a particularly bad session this afternoon. Ah, well, so it goes. 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/AwUBN2V/Mb2UW3au93vOEQLTswCeLlUEgSR+u0KMAT9nGcUWgdKngGsAnjL/ +9xqzTTOys0MxZMWnJSEP0E+ =QJGb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 08:28:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:28:11 +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 IAA05138 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:28:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip59.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.59]) by fep1.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990614222748.NENK15236.fep1@ip59.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:27:48 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 66 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:27:49 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37685b28.1048848@post12.tele.dk> References: <37650b7e.1150324@post12.tele.dk> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA05139 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 11:34:20 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>I think it might be a good idea for some later revision of the laws to >>state explicitly whether dummy and declarer are considered separate >>entities in each such case. > > Maybe so, but I do not believe it to be ambiguous now, if read >carefully. Granted it might be better if it was clear when read >carelessly! As you say, in L20C2 declarer plays dummy's cards. However, in order to interpret L64A correctly we must realize that he does not win the tricks taken by the those cards that he plays from dummy. I think that it requires very little carelessness to get that wrong. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 08:36:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA05162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:36:14 +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 IAA05157 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:36:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehir.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.91]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA32038 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:35:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990614183329.0076124c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:33:29 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 In-Reply-To: <199906142049.QAA03399@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:49 PM 6/14/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> I am gratified that this committee was willing to state explicitly that the >> mere fact that one can construct a hand on which a particular call will >> turn out to be the winning one doesn't necessarily make that call an LA. >> I've not seen this stated in print before, and I've seen lots of evidence >> to suggest that it is not generally understood in ACBL-land. > >While it's not identical to the ACBL definition of LA, I would have >thought the above to be a good working synonym. If you can construct >an appropriate hand for partner, don't you have to "seriously consider" >taking the action that will cater to it? > >Many of us might prefer a more permissive definition of LA (and the >rest of the world uses such), but if the ACBL insists on a strict >definition, it's up to the TD's and AC's to enforce it. > Well you and I are certainly in agreement about the need to change this standard, but not about what it means. I know that some people do interpret it that way, but it is not a workable interpretation. Just because a particular hand (or, equivalently, category of hands) can be constructed, consistent with AI, for which a given action is the winning one does not necessarily mean that _anyone_ would seriously consider bidding it. This line of argumentation is frequently used here on BLML, and I am seldom persuaded by it. The limited vocabulary of the auction means that in general there are always many different hands which partner could hold, consistent with the bidding, and that at the fringes of this broad set there will almost always be some tiny subset for which any particular action is apt to be successful. The art of constructing "representative" samples from this marginalia which would appear to justify any potential action is usually a trivial exercise, involving highly selective judgements about distribution, spot cards, and wasted vs. working values. Ultimately, it proves very little. The important question is whether the category of such hands within the context of all possible hands carries sufficient mass that at least some folks would seriously consider catering to it. This is, of course, a much more difficult analysis to perform. But dredging up "sample" hands especially constructed to support a particular point of view is a poor substitute. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 09:09:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:09:05 +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 JAA05291 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:08:57 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14424) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id hMUTa11359; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:06:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <80edb2f2.2496e4ff@aol.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:06:39 EDT Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 To: adam@tameware.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 6/14/99 5:38:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, adam@tameware.com writes: > Can I presume you mean some other case than Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10? I > understand that 12C3 is not in effect in the ACBL. So do I. I'm saying that where it is in effect, (the WBF) I would be happy to have it not be an exeption for ACs ONLY but a Law which also can be applied by the TDs. If you will read carefully, I think you will find that this is the only place where the AC has a power beyond that of the TD in applying the Law. You'll also find, without much trouble, that it probably contravenes Law 93 B 3 which implies that the AC has the SAME powers as the TD. Sure is interesting what you find if you read the book. Also, would you like to demonstrate that the many AC decisions (ACBL) you have read, when dealing with bridge judgement, arrive at adjustments soley be Law 12 A , B, and only parts 1 and 2 of C? Really? Particularly 12C2? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 09:16:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:16:14 +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 JAA05310 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip7.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.7]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990614231556.NZXQ4101.fep4@ip7.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:15:56 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:15:59 GMT Message-ID: <376a8bb6.2610030@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990614100542.007f8c70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990614100542.007f8c70@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, 14 Jun 1999 10:05:42 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: >If S plays instead of claiming W has no chance. L63B forbids any hints. So >the revoke is established only, if S plays on. I cannot read law 63 that way. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 09:20:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:20:45 +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 JAA05329 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:20:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tg1d-000PuJ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:20:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:30:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opinions, please... References: <001301beb681$6ffc6180$03000004@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <001301beb681$6ffc6180$03000004@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mary Crenshaw wrote: >The director accepted North's explanation of the sequence without >questioning South, and ruled that South's 2D bid was a misbid, there was no >failure to alert and no misinformation, and the result would stand. > >East pointed out that she would not have bid over 2D had she had the >information that it was intended as a transfer. The director repeated her >conclusion that there was a misbid rather than misinformation, and left the >table. East felt that the director had done an incomplete job of >establishing the facts, and said so. > >Now, we would like to know: > >A. Is this ruling correct? Looks fine to me. >B. At the point that he becomes aware of the misunderstanding, what should >North do? Nothing. There was no infraction. -- 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 Jun 15 09:20:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:20:44 +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 JAA05330 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:20:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tg1d-000Hc0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:20:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:27:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L55A References: <3764DEB1.791F52A9@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3764DEB1.791F52A9@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: >L55A > >If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either >defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its >retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > >I had the following situation on Saturday: > >Declarer led out of turn and one defender wanted to accept the lead and >the other wanted it retracted. > >How do you resolve this. Go with the first 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 Tue Jun 15 09:32:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA05369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:32:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05363 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:31:53 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14424) by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vEEFa09518; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:30:12 EDT Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 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 6/14/99 4:54:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > So how do we fix this? Training for AC members, at least at the > national level, shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the ACBL. Or > have a top director closely involved in the hearings, ready to read out > and interpret the relevant laws. > > Not that TD training in the ACBL is perfect, either.... Kojak here. One of the many necessary steps to solve these problems is to do away with the attitude that the AC and the TD are in an adversarial relationship. An Appeals Committee's purpose, in my opinion, is to review the facts, hear the Laws applied thereto, and decide if the TD did the right thing according to those facts and the relevant Laws. Sometimes, while doing this, an AC will obtain more complete facts than the TD was able to get, and may well decide to come to a different conclusion. This is a very slippery and dangerous sort of thing. Remember the players usually had some number of hours to consult professionals, experts, each other, and the stories don't always resemble what was elicited at the table. One of the most common "new facts" that ACs hear is the definite "....I would have bid....after all it's 100% to be right....." when there was no indication whatsoever at the time of the occurence that they had any intention of making any different call! As to training. As long as the ACBL TD force is divided into Fields, as long as the bosses in these Fields have what amounts to autonomy in qualifying, assigning, and evaluating THEIR TDs, and as long as it is necessary to cater to local and regional attitudes about who we like we "ain't gonna get better" in a hurry. That goes for ACs in Spades! I welcome the changes being made at the National level, but am sorry that Mr. Brissman continues to try to excuse away the Vancouver Appeal by passing the buck. If the AC was wrongly instructed as to the Law --- where were the AC highly qualified members who knew the correct interpretation of the Law in getting it right?d out? Wasn't this an AC of a National Event? Didn't we have ACs for these Events because of their importance and the need for highly skilled and informed committee members? Come on, guys, when you drop the ball in right field, everyone sees the error -- (of course you can always say the lights or sun were in your eyes) ---when you make this kind of mistake, 'fess up and take your medicine. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 12:16:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:34 +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 MAA05661 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10tilk-000Jd6-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:16:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:04:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 References: <199906142049.QAA03399@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906142049.QAA03399@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> I am gratified that this committee was willing to state explicitly that the >> mere fact that one can construct a hand on which a particular call will >> turn out to be the winning one doesn't necessarily make that call an LA. >> I've not seen this stated in print before, and I've seen lots of evidence >> to suggest that it is not generally understood in ACBL-land. > >While it's not identical to the ACBL definition of LA, I would have >thought the above to be a good working synonym. If you can construct >an appropriate hand for partner, don't you have to "seriously consider" >taking the action that will cater to it? No. Surely you consider it, but not seriously. Anyway, semantics aside, I think we really must assume that the ACBL definition is as we know it is, rather than what the wording actually says. PWD -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 12:16:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:35 +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 MAA05660 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10tilk-000Jd7-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:16:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:26:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: What is the lead penalty? References: <008401beb4cb$83bfd2e0$e6708cd4@cmartin> <2G4cwpAdDoY3EwDy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <2G4cwpAdDoY3EwDy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >David Martin wrote: >>DWS wrote: > >>> The interpretation I believe to be correct is that L26A applies if the >>>call fully specifies a suit or suits. You then apply the two parts to >>>all suits. So if 1C=2C shows hearts and spades, and later the player >>>bids spades, then L26A1 applies to spades - no lead penalties in the >>>spade suit - and L26A2 applies to hearts - lead penalties in the heart >>>suit. > >>######### I seem to recall a recent official interpretation on this list, >>possibly from Grattan, that indicated that *all* such suits had to be >>specified before L26A1 applied. Thus, in your example, the failure to >>specify hearts would permit lead penalties in both hearts and spades. >>Perhaps, Grattan or somebody who has kept a BLML archive could clarify this? >>############ > > The interpretation to which you refer was at an EBU panel TD weekend, >and you have misunderstood it. It was that all suits had to be >specified before L26A applied. Thus if 1C=2C shows H+S then L26A >applies: if 1C=2C shows H+minor then L26B applies. I have received an enquiry about this article. Apparently the writer did not understand my answer, and asked someone else for help - and he asked me! I post fairly quickly usually, and aim my answers at a variety of levels of audience, so sometimes my answers do not suit everyone. I am always prepared to explain further. Please, everyone, feel free at any time to post or email me asking for clarification. I know some of my posts are not as clear as they might be. ---------- When an action is withdrawn, L26 applies to Lead Penalties. If a suit is specified [as in when a natural 1H is withdrawn] then L26A applies: basically declarer can demand or forbid a heart lead unless the offender shows hearts elsewhere in the auction. If a suit is not specified [as in when a natural 1NT is withdrawn] then L26B applies: basically declarer can forbid a lead of any one suit. A transfer would specify a suit: ie a transfer of 2D [meaning hearts] means L26A applies, and there are penalties in the heart suit unless hearts were shown elsewhere in the auction. What about a 2-suited bid? If the two suits are fully specified [as in a Michaels 2C showing spades and hearts] then L26A applies, and both suits can be required or forbidden unless they were shown elsewhere in the auction. If the two suits are not fully specified [as in a Michaels 2H showing spades and a minor] then L26B applies, and any one suit can be forbidden. Suppose we have a Michaels 2C bid, and later in the auction, the player who withdrew it shows hearts: what then? According to L26A1, there is no penalty as far as hearts are concerned, but L26A2 still applies to spades, which may be required or forbidden. -- 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 Jun 15 12:16:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:37 +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 MAA05662 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10tilk-000Jd8-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:16:10 +0000 Message-ID: <+13uM2BlcbZ3EwZX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:15:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment References: <199906082153.RAA01729@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990609133944.006fc3cc@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990609133944.006fc3cc@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We have had some discussion on this subject, and I have never expressed my view. I have decided it is time I committed myself. This is a long article, so either put the cat out ["Snarl" from Quango!] and settle down for a long read, or skip to the next article!! The basic situation is that a defender revokes. The next trick is led by declarer or dummy and the revoker realises he has revoked. "Stop, I have revoked!" he says [or some such], but his partner plays to the trick anyway. Is the revoke established? Now several people have posted along the lines of "It is quite obvious if you read Law ...." but they are not agreed! The simple argument on one side seems to be that L62A says A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. The simple contra-argument is that L63A1 says A revoke becomes established: when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke). So, what happens: does partner's play [illegal, but so?] establish the revoke? Or is the fact that the player "must" correct the revoke the important one? What of the arguments proposed? The problem is that both are reasonable. So I am not very impressed by arguments that say it is obvious because the Law says so: what is required is to find an argument that explains why the opposite argument fails. We then got a post from Kojak. In it he says that no-one has the *right* to make a call that establishes a revoke once attention has been drawn. He did *not* say that this means he supports the view that the revoke was not established when partner called illegally. It has been assumed by others that this is what Kojak meant. I do not know: no doubt he can make his meaning clear if he wishes. We then got a post from Grattan. He states that the revoke must be corrected and quotes support from Kojak and Kaplan. He has apparently read Kojak's post differently. Perhaps this is what Kojak meant, but it is not what he said. And how about quoting Kaplan? Well, we are unable to check this. I am unhappy at the whole methodology of second-hand quoting of a former Chairman of the WBFLC: neither is he the current man in that post nor can we check the quoting. I have complete and utter belief in Grattan's honesty but that does not mean that I take everything he says as to Kaplan's views as gospel. He may have misunderstood them: he may be quoting them out of context: Kaplan himself may have missed something. For Grattan's post to help the argument along it needs to show why one view is correct and the other view wrong: this it fails to do. I have asked Grattan to argue his case rather than merely quote Kaplan and misquote Kojak but so far he has not done so: I do not think Grattan's posts so far help the argument at all. Finally we have had Steve and Eric, who have done what others have failed to do: they have looked at both sides. Unfortunately they have both realised that there is something to be said for each side and have reached no firm conclusion. However, I believe that by considering both sides they have produced the two most valuable posts so far. ---------- Around this time, John through another point into the argument. He quoted a case where a player made an inadvertent call, and tried to change it under L25A: he tried to change it after his LHO had called, but before his partner had called, ie it was in time under L25A. However, after his attempt to change it and before the TD was summoned, his partner called. This is a very similar situation where partner has taken action after attention was drawn to something, and partner's action appears to be to the detriment of the partnership. L25A says: Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law. Again, one can see the two views: he has attempted to change his call in time so it can be changed: partner has made sure it is out of time, so it is too late to change it. I think this case is simpler: there is no Law that seems to stop him changing it so the Law allows it to be changed despite his partner: his LHO may change his call [L21B1]: if he does so then the partner may also change his but not otherwise [L21B2]. But it is interesting nevertheless. ---------- Back to the main argument. Does partner's illegal call establish the revoke? Let us consider the word "must". According to the Scope: The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. So, let us re-consider L62A: A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. That means that a player has no option whatever in correcting his revoke. He may not use judgement: he may not conceal his revoke: he is given no option. *BUT* we are not talking about the player's decision making: we are talking about the Laws, and the Director's decision making. If the Law says that the revoke is established, and the TD tells the player that he can no longer correct the revoke, then he has done his best to follow the word "must", and it is not culpable that he has not acted as required. How about L63A1? A revoke becomes established: when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke). The offender's partner played in defiance of L9B2 and thus illegally. However, this Law allows for the play being illegal, and still the revoke becomes established. Thus, as a matter of fact, the revoke has become established, and despite the word "must" in L62A, it is no longer possible to correct it. ---------- In the given situation, the revoke was established by partner's illegal play, and can no longer be corrected. I do not accept the arguments of Grattan and others, which I believe to be contrary to the Law as written. ---------- Steve Willner wrote: >Side 1 says that L62A takes precedence. When East announces the revoke, >play stops, and any card exposed by West is not a play. Supporting >arguments: > >1A, time-ordering: we deal with irregularities in the order they occurred, >so we deal first with East's announcement and then with West's exposed >card. > >1B, simplicity: the TD never has to decide whether West's card is >played or not. (Suppose West claims the card was accidentally dropped >and not played at all. A partial rebuttal, of course, is that >sometimes the TD will have to decide anyway to say whether the penalty >card is major or minor.) > >Side 2 says that L63A1 and L63C take precedence. If West's play really >is a play and not a dropped card, the revoke can no longer be corrected >in spite of East's attempt. Supporting arguments: > >2A, semantics: L62A gives an obligation to the player, but L63A1 is an >incontrovertible statement of fact. Similarly, L9B2 puts obligations >on the players (they should take no action), but it doesn't say that >any action they do take is cancelled (in contrast to, for example >L68D). In fact, L9C and L11A contemplate that there might be >subsequent actions taken in violation of L9B2. > >2B, equity: the side that has committed two infractions (the revoke >and West's illegal play) should not benefit, and an established revoke >is likely to be worse for them than allowing the correction. > >Unfortunately, I find arguments on _both_ sides convincing, especially >arguments 1B and 2A. I find 1A to be virtually irrelevant: the infractions are linked, not separate. It is separate infractions that we deal with in order. I find 2B to be totally irrelevant: we follow the Laws as written, not equity in defiance of the Laws. As for 1B, I cannot see what this has to do with anything: TD's routinely decide whether a card is played! I find 2A convincing, and it supports my view. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 12:16:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:38 +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 MAA05664 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:16:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10tilp-000JdF-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:16:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:10:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: Master Points - Aims , "profits" , methods . References: <99Jun14.204349gmt+0100.29570@tst.tst.dk> In-Reply-To: <99Jun14.204349gmt+0100.29570@tst.tst.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Flemming Boegh-Soerensen >chairman of DBF's MP-committee > >PS: Yes, after two years of lurking I know my responsibilities. One cat, Rose, >11 years old and afraid of the goldfish, carps and the sturgeon in the pond! Who >is going to set F-BLML up? Meeaaoouuwwwwww ! Delicious !!! Nice to see you, Rose! -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 12:33:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:33:51 +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 MAA05726 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:33:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tj2G-000Bjz-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:33:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:04:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L55A In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990614093918.0070e8c0@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990614093918.0070e8c0@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 10:51 PM 6/14/99 +1200, wayne wrote: > >>L55A >> >>If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either >>defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its >>retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). >> >>I had the following situation on Saturday: >> >>Declarer led out of turn and one defender wanted to accept the lead and >>the other wanted it retracted. >> >>How do you resolve this. > >Practice around here is that whichever defender speaks first controls. If >the statements are simultaneous, the one behind the LOOT controls. If >neither defender speaks up (each trying to defer to the other), the hand >behind the LOOT must decide. > I do exactly the same when I'm TD. When playing and in 2nd seat I wait for 2 or three seconds to see if pard wants to accept, and then make my statement In 4th seat if I have nothing to say I wait for partner, knowing he will shortly speak. This is an agreement. 2nd seat knows 4th seat has no preference if silent. Is this legal? Cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 12:36:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:36:16 +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 MAA05733 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:36:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tj4r-000BzA-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:35:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:34:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: What is the lead penalty? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip Withdrawn calls and 26A > > What about a 2-suited bid? If the two suits are fully specified [as >in a Michaels 2C showing spades and hearts] then L26A applies, and both ^^^^ >suits can be required or forbidden unless they were shown elsewhere in >the auction. One point of clarification required: Do you mean either one or the other, or do you mean both spades and hearts? Can I ban a Spade lead and ban a Heart lead as well; or just ban or require one or the other? Obviously I can't require both :)) John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 12:50:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA05774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:50:15 +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 MAA05768 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:50:01 +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 TAA23120 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03fe01beb6d9$9335fd20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906141709.NAA25349@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 7 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 19:48:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > The Facts: 4 made four, plus 420 for N/S. North broke tempo before > > he bid 3. > > General note for all posters: when cutting and pasting, you will often > need to manually insert S, H, D and C if they appeared as pictures in > the article. (I have inserted the letters below.) > Sorry about that, didn't think to proofread what I had pasted. Thanks for fixing it. I'll blame it on Chyah, who didn't do her beautiful text files for the Chicago cases (yet?), as she did for Orlando. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 13:02:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:02:50 +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 NAA05808 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:02:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10tizL-000KfS-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:30:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 03:20:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Schoderb@aol.com writes >On a lighter note, I wonder how many members of the various Laws Committees >could pass a thorough testing review of the Laws? In my short experience of >over 30 years as a TD I've seen some sorry examples of politics, egos, and >ignorance at all levels. I'll bet some of them don't even own a Law book. And >were the various ACs similarly tested, I shudder tot hink what the results >would be. >Kojak The English ACs seem to do pretty well. The CTD looks round the room at the beginning of the session and picks out half a dozen players who he thinks will perform the job well, checks if they're content to serve, and then constructs an AC from this "list" as required. My perception is that we try to choose a Chairman with a good knowledge of the Laws, and two other good quality players. It seems to work. Our TD's do a lot better than 50% on predicting the outcome of an appeal of one of their own rulings. We might say "I've got an appeal I'm going to lose" (be overturned) or "they'll go for 70/30 (L12C3)" and be right in that judgement a lot of the time. Is it done differently in ACBLland? -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 13:07:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:07:13 +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 NAA05832 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:07:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tixH-000KVX-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:28:04 +0000 Message-ID: <2wGEOiAA$aZ3Ewph@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:43:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: disputed claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A quick poll please, not a lot of discussion :)) I had two claims with insufficient statements and with outstanding trumps tonight at the YC. One was routine, this is the other:- J9 spades trump Qx North and East immaterial - - 10 A - Qx South claims: "playing clubs" having forgotten the trumps :)) My ruling gave 2 tricks to South. 1) C ruffed 2) xH return 3) C ruffed 4) S10 wins. It is clear that at trick 3 South might lead a trump, but he made no statement in this respect, so I viewed that his only statement was still in force, and there was no "doubtful point" L70A and so he continues with clubs (Which would be obvious if West held S98). Who would award 3 tricks to East? I thought it close but I don't think it needs a lot of discussion. Just a vote please with any supporting comment. It's interesting, I'll publish the result. Name: Vote(2 or 3): Comment: Cheers -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 13:49:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA05903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:49:56 +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 NAA05898 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:49:47 +1000 (EST) From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (550) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pHMJa08561 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:47:37 EDT Subject: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity 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 I sat east for this hand. Please comment S K654 H 2 D AQ52 C AT64 S AQJT8 S 93 H 74 H AQJ D J76 D K983 C 532 C KQJ3 S 72 H KT98653 D T4 C 97 The auction was; W N E S Pass 1D 1NT 2H* Pass 2S Pass 3H Pass Pass Pass 2H was alerted as a transfer. 3H was not accompanied by any clear body language or mannerism from which one could suggest that north received direct UI that the 2H call was natural, rather than as alerted. Over north's pass I called the director and requested protection against a possible irregularity. After he arrived and the situation was explained, I passed and when dummy was presented, I suggested that the dummy had a dramatic preference for spades yet had passed. No further explanation of the two heart bid was offered prior to the conclusion of the bidding. The result was down 1, on the lead of a diamond and a club shift. It would appear from the discussion that 2H was NOT a transfer. Let that be the factual basis for this case. North was mistaken in his announcement. South clearly had unauthorized information from the announcement. Does North? Is south permitted to correct to 3H? Shouldn't he act as if north held 5 spades and six diamonds, perhaps a heart void for pulling from 2H to 2S? If passing 2S to play the ostensible 5-2 fit is a logical alternative to bidding 3H into a possible 7-0 fit, then isn't south prohibited from bidding 3H? If passing 2S is not a logical alternative, so that south is permitted his 3H bid, is north then entitled to pass 3H? Is north entitled to "change his mind?" If north can change his mind, should he make an announcement to east west? Does it matter if he recalls clearly that he was wrong, or if he is just guessing? Is it correct that If north has unauthorized information, then north would be required to bid 3S? Or 4S? If north is required to bid spades, can south bid 4H -- or 5H? Does it depend on whether north is doubled in spades? When does the merry go round stop? The director ruled average plus to us, average minus to the "offenders" Was this reasonable? From my following of the commentary of this group, I think not. Make a ruling. Either the result stands or you adjudicate on the basis of the point of the rollercoaster that you determine.... And, oh, by the way, if it goes beyond 3H, do you add a double to the score? Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 14:42:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA05990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:42:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA05985 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:42:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id OAA27126; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:41:56 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma027055; Tue, 15 Jun 99 14:41:52 +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 OAA19962 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:41:51 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02624; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:45:17 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990615122514.0093cf00@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:38:30 +1000 To: Bridge Laws From: Peter Newman Subject: Hesitate and Shoot? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings All, This is quite long so please feel free to delete and move on with life..... I have been reading with interest a number of threads on LAs. I have served on a number of appeals recently where the consistent argument by the side that hesitates is: "The hesitation doesn't suggest the action taken because the hesitation can be taken two (or more) ways." The 'classic' example is the limit raise problem... Does 1S - 3S (slow) suggest extra values or less values. If you can't tell what the hesitation shows then Pass and 4S are acceptable as neither is demonstratably suggested. I think if this reasoning is acceptable then you will find that almost all hesitations can have multiple meanings (except perhaps a hesitation over a pre-empt) and that therefore almost anything goes. [Yes - I am deliberately overstating the case.] I think that a much more reasonable and practical approach is to assume that hesitations show extra values and disallow LAs that take advantage of this. As a practical matter I think most hesitations are because of extra values rather than anything else. Let me give an example: 1D 1S 2S* ?? *= hesitation You hold: J8xxx, KJx Tx Axx Now partners hesitation could be maximum raise or it could be shall I raise on only 3 cards (instead of bidding 1NT). I am loathe to allow the argument that because there are 2 meanings of the bid it is acceptable to make a game try on this hand. [If you don't like my bridge judgement that this is at best borderline game try then modify the hand to suit your personal requirements.] If we apply this principle to the recent hand in the "Do I owe an Apology" thread then the slow pass of 5H should be treated as extra values and therefore the 6S bid is not allowed. [I think that particular case is quite difficult because of the high level and the fact that it is necessary to consider the meaning of the auction regardless of your hand over the opponents 5H call and so have no qualms if it is judged that the facts on the case mean that 6S is OK.] I think this approach works well in practise as well as fitting in with my sense of what is appropriate actions after a hesitation by partner. Let me go back to the 1S-slow 3S auction. I would rule (in general) that 4S is not allowed following the above principal. Before I finish I would like to give some other comments on this auction. Suppose prd. bids a slow 3S - I now know she doesn't have a 'normal' limit raise. Suppose I have a hand that will make game opposite a maximum but not a minimum at imps VUL I should bid o/w Pass. But now with the normal hands removed the odds have much improved for bidding game (because of the imp scale - maths ommitted). This supports that bidding 4S over a slow 3S shouldn't be allowed. [Obviously - if a director determines that for a particular pair a slow 3S always is weaker than an in tempo 3S none of this applies.] Comments invited.... Peter Newman Chairman - NSWBA Tournament Committee http://nswba.com.au From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 15:43:07 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:43:07 +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 PAA06051 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:42:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-214-193.s447.tnt3.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.214.193]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA16803 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003e01beb6f1$ac9e9480$c1d67ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:41:09 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 11:47 PM Subject: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity > I sat east for this hand. Please comment > > S K654 > H 2 > D AQ52 > C AT64 > S AQJT8 S 93 > H 74 H AQJ > D J76 D K983 > C 532 C KQJ3 > S 72 > H KT98653 > D T4 > C 97 > > The auction was; > W N E S > Pass 1D 1NT 2H* > Pass 2S Pass 3H > Pass Pass Pass > > 2H was alerted as a transfer. > > 3H was not accompanied by any clear body language or mannerism from which one > could suggest that north received direct UI that the 2H call was natural, > rather than as alerted. > > Over north's pass I called the director and requested protection against a > possible irregularity. After he arrived and the situation was explained, I > passed and when dummy was presented, I suggested that the dummy had a > dramatic preference for spades yet had passed. No further explanation of > the two heart bid was offered prior to the conclusion of the bidding. > > The result was down 1, on the lead of a diamond and a club shift. > > It would appear from the discussion that 2H was NOT a transfer. Let that be > the factual basis for this case. North was mistaken in his announcement. > > South clearly had unauthorized information from the announcement. Does > North? According to your explanation, N is not in possession of UI, and is free to act as he chooses. However, it takes a very controlled S to show no indication that there has been a misexplanation. The cues could have been very subtle, and perhaps only readable by partner. Still, as described, N has no UI. The 3H bid may have been all N needed to wake up. >Is south permitted to correct to 3H? Shouldn't he act as if north > held 5 spades and six diamonds, perhaps a heart void for pulling from 2H to > 2S? > S is permitted to rebid a seven card suit. Not even in the ACBL would I consider forcing S to pass. > If passing 2S to play the ostensible 5-2 fit is a logical alternative to > bidding 3H into a possible 7-0 fit, then isn't south prohibited from bidding > 3H? > As as said, not in my wildest dreams would I consider prohibiting a player from rebidding a seven card suit. Also, bear in mind that S in *not* expecting to hear 2S on this auction. That call, even without the MI, could well be a wakeup, and the 2S call is AI. > If passing 2S is not a logical alternative, so that south is permitted his 3H > bid, is north then entitled to pass 3H? Is north entitled to "change his > mind?" > N has no UI. N can do anything he wants. If S turns up with a real major 2 suiter, N is not going to be a happy camper. He's allowed to take that risk. > If north can change his mind, should he make an announcement to east west? > Does it matter if he recalls clearly that he was wrong, or if he is just > guessing? > If he believes he may have misexplained, then he should summon the TD immediately. > Is it correct that If north has unauthorized information, then north would be > required to bid 3S? Or 4S? > If UI had woken N up to his misexplanation, he must attempt to bid as though there were no UI. That means repeated spade calls as needed. > If north is required to bid spades, can south bid 4H -- or 5H? Does it > depend on whether north is doubled in spades? When does the merry go round > stop? If S rebids hearts a third time, there is enough AI IMO for N to figure out something's wrong. I would not require N to pull 4H if it got that far. > > The director ruled average plus to us, average minus to the "offenders" Was > this reasonable? No, but the actual score requires thought. If 2H is correctly explained as hearts, W will compete or invite in spades. E could accept or decline. 3N will make if E can force N to allow an entry to the spades in dummy, so the most favorable likely result for the non-offenders is 3N making by E/W. That's my ruling. >From my following of the commentary of this group, I think > not. Make a ruling. Either the result stands or you adjudicate on the basis > of the point of the rollercoaster that you determine.... And, oh, by the way, > if it goes beyond 3H, do you add a double to the score? > > > Craig Hemphill > > Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 15:54:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:54:11 +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 PAA06101 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:54:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-214-193.s447.tnt3.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.214.193]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA17573 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:57:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004701beb6f3$399ab160$c1d67ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <2wGEOiAA$aZ3Ewph@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: disputed claim Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:52:16 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 9:43 PM Subject: disputed claim > > A quick poll please, not a lot of discussion :)) > > I had two claims with insufficient statements and with outstanding > trumps tonight at the YC. One was routine, this is the other:- > > J9 spades trump > Qx North and East immaterial > - > - > 10 > A > - > Qx > South claims: "playing clubs" having forgotten the trumps :)) > My ruling gave 2 tricks to South. > > 1) C ruffed > 2) xH return > 3) C ruffed > 4) S10 wins. > > It is clear that at trick 3 South might lead a trump, but he made no > statement in this respect, so I viewed that his only statement was still > in force, and there was no "doubtful point" L70A and so he continues > with clubs (Which would be obvious if West held S98). > > Who would award 3 tricks to East? I thought it close but I don't think > it needs a lot of discussion. Just a vote please with any supporting > comment. It's interesting, I'll publish the result. > > Name: > Vote(2 or 3): > Comment: > > Cheers > -- > 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 > If S plays clubs as claimed, he will get 2 tricks. Nothing close about it that I can see. He stated a line of play that will yield two tricks, so two he gets. There is no way for S to make less than 2 tricks if he leads clubs as stated at his opportunities to lead. WTP? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 17:31:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA06275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:31:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-10.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (root@slot0-10.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06269 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:31:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-134.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA18228 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:10:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 00:10:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings, I'm fairly new to the game, i.e. I wasn't reading the ACBL Bulletin in the previous decade, let alone the one preceding. The ACBL seems to change gears every so often. There are several mistakes they've made and corrected in this period. This seems like a whopper. Does anyone know if this is still ACBL policy? It seems quite odd to have a policy that in spirit, if not in letter, contradicts the Laws. Bruce In article <3.0.1.32.19990610084933.007077d8@pop.cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: : At 05:46 PM 6/9/99 -0400, Hirsch wrote: : Its advice to players runs for several paragraphs, but boils down to the : oft-cited "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule: "When partner has : psyched once, for many sessions to come every time a similar situation : arises, his partner will remember and wonder. The partner who remembers : and wonders is apt to test the water before he takes the plunge of an : irreversible action predicated upon his partner's call. A player who thus : displays caution may not be deemed to be simply prudent. His caution stems : from prior knowledge and experience with this partner and thus consitutes : prima facie evidence that an implicit partnership understanding exists." : Oakie himself says that, "Where psychic bids are concerned, however, the : nature of the bid or call is such that the need to disclose implicit : understandings has the effect of practically preventing their use." : He offers specific advice to TDs and ACs on the best ways to "get" psychers : in various situations: "People who employ psychic calls against less : experienced players may be guilty of unsportsmanlike psyching and thereby : be in violation of League regulations. People who psych against their : peers may be guilty of frivolous psyching, or of having an unannounced : partnership understanding. People who psych against more experience : players... may lose the few good boards they get by being judged to have : indulged in unsportsmanlike psyching, or to have disrupted the game." : It's your basic Catch-22. Psyching is legal, but it is unsportsmanlike, : and "unsportsmanlike psyching" is illegal. : When Mr. Oakie, speaking officially for the ACBL, writes, "Expert players : and the large majority of experienced club and tournament players seldom or : never make a psychic bid," is it any wonder that we have come to regard : psychs by our opponents as "unexpected"? : Eric Landau elandau@cais.com : APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org : 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 : Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 18:08:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:08:10 +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 SAA06343 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:07:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:07:19 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990615100757.007f99a0@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, 15 Jun 1999 10:07:57 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <376a8bb6.2610030@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.6.32.19990614100542.007f8c70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990609155559.0079f810@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990610204853.0088b350@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <3.0.6.32.19990614100542.007f8c70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 23:15 14.06.99 GMT, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:05:42 +0200 skrev Richard Bley: > >>If S plays instead of claiming W has no chance. L63B forbids any hints. So >>the revoke is established only, if S plays on. > >I cannot read law 63 that way. What shall W do if S plays on? a) playing on. The revoke is established then b) waiting so that E becomes aware of his mistake As far as I remember this was unanimously decided in this list that this is a hint which fulfils the requirements of L63B. So the revoke is not established in the new rules but the penalties are there. So the fact is, that S after playing a card is nearly certain to get his established revoke... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 18:21:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:21:33 +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 SAA06370 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:21:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:20:57 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990615102135.007f98e0@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, 15 Jun 1999 10:21:35 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: disputed claim In-Reply-To: <2wGEOiAA$aZ3Ewph@probst.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:43 15.06.99 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >A quick poll please, not a lot of discussion :)) > >I had two claims with insufficient statements and with outstanding >trumps tonight at the YC. One was routine, this is the other:- > >J9 spades trump >Qx North and East immaterial >- >- > 10 > A > - > Qx >South claims: "playing clubs" having forgotten the trumps :)) >My ruling gave 2 tricks to South. > >1) C ruffed >2) xH return >3) C ruffed >4) S10 wins. > >It is clear that at trick 3 South might lead a trump, but he made no >statement in this respect, so I viewed that his only statement was still >in force, and there was no "doubtful point" L70A and so he continues >with clubs (Which would be obvious if West held S98). > >Who would award 3 tricks to East? I thought it close but I don't think >it needs a lot of discussion. Just a vote please with any supporting >comment. It's interesting, I'll publish the result. > >Name: >Vote(2 or 3): two tricks for each >Comment: Not even close in my opinion (and by the way, nobody is hurted by this decision) > >Cheers >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 18:32:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA06397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:32:35 +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 SAA06392 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:32:23 +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 IAA28623 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:31:40 GMT Message-ID: <37660F7A.585D3E29@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:31:54 +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: L55A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" a écrit : > In article <3.0.1.32.19990614093918.0070e8c0@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau > writes > >At 10:51 PM 6/14/99 +1200, wayne wrote: > > > >>L55A > >> > >>If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either > >>defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its > >>retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > >> > >>I had the following situation on Saturday: > >> > >>Declarer led out of turn and one defender wanted to accept the lead and > >>the other wanted it retracted. > >> > >>How do you resolve this. > > > >Practice around here is that whichever defender speaks first controls. If > >the statements are simultaneous, the one behind the LOOT controls. If > >neither defender speaks up (each trying to defer to the other), the hand > >behind the LOOT must decide. > > > I do exactly the same when I'm TD. > > When playing and in 2nd seat I wait for 2 or three seconds to see if > pard wants to accept, and then make my statement > > In 4th seat if I have nothing to say I wait for partner, knowing he will > shortly speak. > > This is an agreement. 2nd seat knows 4th seat has no preference if > silent. Is this legal? Hardly, I'm afraid: partnership agreement about how to act after an infraction! but I confess to act the same way as you and, for our excuse, I hate all the laws which ask for a race between players (opponents or partners). JP Rocafort > > > 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 -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 19:02:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA06446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:02:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA06440 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:02:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19990615090155.SNED26247.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 02:01:55 -0700 From: brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Hesitate and Shoot? Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:01:41 GMT Message-ID: <376a0ffb.6545813@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <4.1.19990615122514.0093cf00@sercit> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990615122514.0093cf00@sercit> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:38:30 +1000, Peter Newman wrote: > >I have been reading with interest a number of threads on LAs. I have served >on a number of appeals recently where the consistent argument by the side >that hesitates is: >"The hesitation doesn't suggest the action taken because the hesitation can >be taken two (or more) ways." Well, Peter asked for comments, and while I've no claims to any extensive (or recent!) TD experience, I can't resist emerging from lurk to throw in my twopennorth. Please note that I'm not querying anything of what Peter had to say. I realise no-one wants to see OBM ruling the game - but it find it profoundly depressing that a game which is supposed to be a mental exercise seems to be moving towards the ideas expressed by Peter's choice of subject line. I'll declare my interest - I have played the game long enough to be painfully aware of my limitations as a player, but (along with a couple of equally unfortunate partners) I've also been cursed with a fascination for non-standard and/or home-brewed bidding systems. Yes, I'm aware that the likes of Meckstroth and Rodwell can have their system notes delivered via heavy haulage and still play in tempo - but for us (much!) lesser mortals, occasionally you just have to stop and see whether you can drag the relevant paragraph or two out of your memory. As above, I realise you TDs have to try and (at least) restrict the use of UI, and yes, I do realise how much information can be conveyed via UI by a pair who have the occasional lapse in ethics. However, if I restrict myself to playing something I can remember in perfect tempo, that kills much more than half of my interest in the game. OK, so I realise this post isn't going to change anything, and it may not even be constructive, but I think it's a point of view that's entitled to some degree of consideration, even if the likely conclusion is that the need to control the use of UI is more important than the need of a few systems geeks to try and remember what it was they agreed to play this week. ;-) Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 22:25:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA06972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:25:03 +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 WAA06967 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:24:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge.dynamite.com.au (isp363.unl.can.dynamite.com.au [203.37.27.131]) by dynamite.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA23708; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:26:47 +1000 Message-ID: <001c01beb72a$57afc8c0$831b25cb@dynamite.com.au> From: "Canberra Bridge Club" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <199906082153.RAA01729@cfa183.harvard.edu><3.0.1.32.19990609133944.006fc3cc@pop.cais.com> <+13uM2BlcbZ3EwZX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: establishment Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:26:47 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: 15 June 1999 12:15 Subject: Re: establishment > > We have had some discussion on this subject, and I have never > expressed my view. I have decided it is time I committed myself. This > is a long article, so either put the cat out ["Snarl" from Quango!] and > settle down for a long read, or skip to the next article!! > > The basic situation is that a defender revokes. The next trick is led > by declarer or dummy and the revoker realises he has revoked. "Stop, I > have revoked!" he says [or some such], but his partner plays to the > trick anyway. Is the revoke established? > > Now several people have posted along the lines of "It is quite obvious > if you read Law ...." but they are not agreed! > > The simple argument on one side seems to be that L62A says > > A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established. > > The simple contra-argument is that L63A1 says > > A revoke becomes established: > when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the > following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes > the revoke). > > So, what happens: does partner's play [illegal, but so?] establish the > revoke? Or is the fact that the player "must" correct the revoke the > important one? > > What of the arguments proposed? The problem is that both are > reasonable. So I am not very impressed by arguments that say it is > obvious because the Law says so: what is required is to find an argument > that explains why the opposite argument fails. > > We then got a post from Kojak. In it he says that no-one has the > *right* to make a call that establishes a revoke once attention has been > drawn. He did *not* say that this means he supports the view that the > revoke was not established when partner called illegally. It has been > assumed by others that this is what Kojak meant. I do not know: no > doubt he can make his meaning clear if he wishes. > > We then got a post from Grattan. He states that the revoke must be > corrected and quotes support from Kojak and Kaplan. He has apparently > read Kojak's post differently. Perhaps this is what Kojak meant, but it > is not what he said. And how about quoting Kaplan? Well, we are unable > to check this. I am unhappy at the whole methodology of second-hand > quoting of a former Chairman of the WBFLC: neither is he the current man > in that post nor can we check the quoting. I have complete and utter > belief in Grattan's honesty but that does not mean that I take > everything he says as to Kaplan's views as gospel. He may have > misunderstood them: he may be quoting them out of context: Kaplan > himself may have missed something. > > For Grattan's post to help the argument along it needs to show why one > view is correct and the other view wrong: this it fails to do. I have > asked Grattan to argue his case rather than merely quote Kaplan and > misquote Kojak but so far he has not done so: I do not think Grattan's > posts so far help the argument at all. > > Finally we have had Steve and Eric, who have done what others have > failed to do: they have looked at both sides. Unfortunately they have > both realised that there is something to be said for each side and have > reached no firm conclusion. However, I believe that by considering both > sides they have produced the two most valuable posts so far. > > ---------- > > Around this time, John through another point into the argument. He > quoted a case where a player made an inadvertent call, and tried to > change it under L25A: he tried to change it after his LHO had called, > but before his partner had called, ie it was in time under L25A. > However, after his attempt to change it and before the TD was summoned, > his partner called. This is a very similar situation where partner has > taken action after attention was drawn to something, and partner's > action appears to be to the detriment of the partnership. L25A says: > > Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his > intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or > attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last > call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the > applicable Law. > > Again, one can see the two views: he has attempted to change his call > in time so it can be changed: partner has made sure it is out of time, > so it is too late to change it. > > I think this case is simpler: there is no Law that seems to stop him > changing it so the Law allows it to be changed despite his partner: his > LHO may change his call [L21B1]: if he does so then the partner may also > change his but not otherwise [L21B2]. But it is interesting > nevertheless. > > ---------- > > Back to the main argument. Does partner's illegal call establish the > revoke? Let us consider the word "must". According to the Scope: > > The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must > inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is > regarded as serious. > > So, let us re-consider L62A: > > A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregularity before it becomes established. > > That means that a player has no option whatever in correcting his > revoke. He may not use judgement: he may not conceal his revoke: he is > given no option. > > *BUT* we are not talking about the player's decision making: we are > talking about the Laws, and the Director's decision making. If the Law > says that the revoke is established, and the TD tells the player that he > can no longer correct the revoke, then he has done his best to follow > the word "must", and it is not culpable that he has not acted as > required. > > How about L63A1? > > A revoke becomes established: > when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the > following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes > the revoke). > > The offender's partner played in defiance of L9B2 and thus illegally. > However, this Law allows for the play being illegal, and still the > revoke becomes established. Thus, as a matter of fact, the revoke has > become established, and despite the word "must" in L62A, it is no longer > possible to correct it. > > ---------- > > In the given situation, the revoke was established by partner's > illegal play, and can no longer be corrected. I do not accept the > arguments of Grattan and others, which I believe to be contrary to the > Law as written. > > ---------- > > Steve Willner wrote: > > >Side 1 says that L62A takes precedence. When East announces the revoke, > >play stops, and any card exposed by West is not a play. Supporting > >arguments: > > > >1A, time-ordering: we deal with irregularities in the order they occurred, > >so we deal first with East's announcement and then with West's exposed > >card. > > > >1B, simplicity: the TD never has to decide whether West's card is > >played or not. (Suppose West claims the card was accidentally dropped > >and not played at all. A partial rebuttal, of course, is that > >sometimes the TD will have to decide anyway to say whether the penalty > >card is major or minor.) > > > >Side 2 says that L63A1 and L63C take precedence. If West's play really > >is a play and not a dropped card, the revoke can no longer be corrected > >in spite of East's attempt. Supporting arguments: > > > >2A, semantics: L62A gives an obligation to the player, but L63A1 is an > >incontrovertible statement of fact. Similarly, L9B2 puts obligations > >on the players (they should take no action), but it doesn't say that > >any action they do take is cancelled (in contrast to, for example > >L68D). In fact, L9C and L11A contemplate that there might be > >subsequent actions taken in violation of L9B2. > > > >2B, equity: the side that has committed two infractions (the revoke > >and West's illegal play) should not benefit, and an established revoke > >is likely to be worse for them than allowing the correction. > > > >Unfortunately, I find arguments on _both_ sides convincing, especially > >arguments 1B and 2A. > > I find 1A to be virtually irrelevant: the infractions are linked, not > separate. It is separate infractions that we deal with in order. I > find 2B to be totally irrelevant: we follow the Laws as written, not > equity in defiance of the Laws. As for 1B, I cannot see what this has > to do with anything: TD's routinely decide whether a card is played! > > I find 2A convincing, and it supports my view. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ $$$ I was following your argument until you dismissed 1A. Could you give an example of an incident involving multiple infractions where these infractions are not linked? Sean Mullamphy.$$$ > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 15 22:49:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA07008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:49:41 +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 WAA07003 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:49:21 +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 JAA00954 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:01:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990615084939.0070e348@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:49:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 In-Reply-To: <199906142049.QAA03399@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:49 PM 6/14/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> I am gratified that this committee was willing to state explicitly that the >> mere fact that one can construct a hand on which a particular call will >> turn out to be the winning one doesn't necessarily make that call an LA. >> I've not seen this stated in print before, and I've seen lots of evidence >> to suggest that it is not generally understood in ACBL-land. > >While it's not identical to the ACBL definition of LA, I would have >thought the above to be a good working synonym. If you can construct >an appropriate hand for partner, don't you have to "seriously consider" >taking the action that will cater to it? > >Many of us might prefer a more permissive definition of LA (and the >rest of the world uses such), but if the ACBL insists on a strict >definition, it's up to the TD's and AC's to enforce it. A few of the folks who set the ACBL's appeals policies (notably Rich Colker) have come to understand that to "seriously consider" a call means more than merely thinking about it; it means actually contemplating making it. The case at issue is illustrative. When partner's 3NT comes around to you, your first and most obvious thought is whether 3NT might be the right contract. Everyone on a hypothetical "panel of your peers" is likely to think along the same lines. But if they would unanimously reject the possibility of passing 3NT, after concluding that the "magic hand" that would make it right to pass is just too unlikely, then they have not "seriously considered" passing. The general feeling is that the "seriously considered" criterion can still be satisfied even if no one on the hypothetical panel would actually choose to pass, and nobody has yet come up with a satisfactory way to word an appropriate interpretation. But the feeling is that "seriously considered" should be taken to mean something along the lines of "might have made the call in some situations". >So how do we fix this? Training for AC members, at least at the >national level, shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the ACBL. Or >have a top director closely involved in the hearings, ready to read out >and interpret the relevant laws. > >Not that TD training in the ACBL is perfect, either.... Training for AC members at the national level isn't beyond the ACBL's capabilities. Indeed, they are trying, with some success, to accomplish this -- it is, for example, the primary rationale behind publishing the casebooks. But 99+% of the problem as seen by the membership isn't at the national level. 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 Jun 15 23:25:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA07054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:25:15 +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 XAA07049 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:25:06 +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 JAA03945 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:38:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990615092551.00710090@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:25:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:10 AM 6/15/99 -0400, Bruce wrote: > The ACBL seems to change gears every so often. There are >several mistakes they've made and corrected in this period. This >seems like a whopper. > > Does anyone know if this is still ACBL policy? It seems quite >odd to have a policy that in spirit, if not in letter, contradicts the >Laws. Nothing has been published in the Bulletin on the subject since Oakie's article, so that article still stands as the most recent statement of policy by the ACBL to its membership. 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 Jun 16 00:14:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA08891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:14:32 +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 AAA08783 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:14:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehb5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.101]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15227 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:13:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990615101137.0077c4d0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:11:37 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:47 PM 6/14/99 EDT, Craig wrote lots of questions. >South clearly had unauthorized information from the announcement. Does >North? Is south permitted to correct to 3H? Shouldn't he act as if north >held 5 spades and six diamonds, perhaps a heart void for pulling from 2H to >2S? North does not have UI, according to the facts you have provided (i.e., no mannerisms, body language, etc.). Is passing 2S a LA? Perhaps, in the ACBL's definition. I personally would treat 2S as forcing in this auction, but having already bid freely with a 3-count, would be tempted to shut up before I got into real trouble. In the end, I would probably rebid 3H, but not before my fumbling and evident agony had thoroughly bollixed partner's options. I guess I do think passing is a LA, and would thus be inclined in favor of adjusting to 2S down a bunch. >If passing 2S to play the ostensible 5-2 fit is a logical alternative to >bidding 3H into a possible 7-0 fit, then isn't south prohibited from bidding >3H? Yes, certainly. >If passing 2S is not a logical alternative, so that south is permitted his 3H >bid, is north then entitled to pass 3H? Is north entitled to "change his >mind?" > North is not barred in any case, since he has no UI. >If north can change his mind, should he make an announcement to east west? >Does it matter if he recalls clearly that he was wrong, or if he is just >guessing? Certainly he should do so. His pass to 3H indicates a level of certainty higher than a mere guess, and the opponents are entitled to a correct explanation at the earliest possible opportunity. Even if he is "just guessing", he needs to inform the opponents that his earlier explanation may be incorrect. This correction will do nothing to mitigate the effects of the earlier MI/UI, and may provide additional UI, but in some circumstances might avoid additional fallout of MI. >Is it correct that If north has unauthorized information, then north would be >required to bid 3S? Or 4S? If North _did_ have UI (he does not) then a score adjustment to some unsuccessfully high number of spades, probably doubled, would be in order. >If north is required to bid spades, can south bid 4H -- or 5H? Does it >depend on whether north is doubled in spades? When does the merry go round >stop? I got off at at 2S. But if we have wrongly allowed S to bid 3H and then wrongly enforced a 3+ spade bid on North, then we certainly cannot allow South to take out the next spade bid by North. Whatever we judge North would have bid at his third turn (and this will depend somewhat on our understanding of N/S methods), becomes the final contract for adjustment purposes. But having made two wrong decisions at this point already (allowing 3H and forcing n spades), I am feeling a decided lack of confidence in my next move. >The director ruled average plus to us, average minus to the "offenders" Was >this reasonable? From my following of the commentary of this group, I think >not. Make a ruling. Either the result stands or you adjudicate on the basis >of the point of the rollercoaster that you determine.... And, oh, by the way, >if it goes beyond 3H, do you add a double to the score? > Lazy bones. I doubt that the director's ruling will garner much support from this group. I agree with you: either the result stands, based on the judgement that there is no LA to 3H (my second choice), or adjust to a failing spade contract, 2S down a bunch being my first choice. And for a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I am too lazy to figure out exactly how big a bunch. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 00:37:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:37:20 +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 AAA09449 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:37:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.43.121]) by mtiwmhc05.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.06 118-133) with SMTP id <19990615143635.EUXC28293@default> for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:36:35 +0000 Message-ID: <017a01beb73c$545797e0$ce2a4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.1.32.19990615092551.00710090@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:35:32 -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 > At 12:10 AM 6/15/99 -0400, Bruce wrote: > > > The ACBL seems to change gears every so often. There are > >several mistakes they've made and corrected in this period. This > >seems like a whopper. > > > > Does anyone know if this is still ACBL policy? It seems quite > >odd to have a policy that in spirit, if not in letter, contradicts the > >Laws. > > Nothing has been published in the Bulletin on the subject since Oakie's > article, so that article still stands as the most recent statement of > policy by the ACBL to its membership. > INCORRECT! I know of no ACBL policy that is in opposition to the Laws. I suggest that Eric preface statements such as the one made above with 'In My Very Humble Opinion.' I hope Bruce will take the time to read Law 40. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 00:51:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:51:02 +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 AAA09487 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:50:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehb5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.101]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA15625 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:50:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990615104844.0193fc84@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:48:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Hesitate and Shoot? In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990615122514.0093cf00@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:38 PM 6/15/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >I think that a much more reasonable and practical approach is to assume >that hesitations show extra values and disallow LAs that take advantage of >this. As a practical matter I think most hesitations are because of extra >values rather than anything else. As a matter of relative frequency, I suspect you're right. But the large and significant number of exceptions to that principle make it an ineffective tool for adjudication. To consider a few cases: 1. A partner who makes a slow and uncertain penalty double is generally showing _lesser_ values, at least in the sense of defensive prospects, than one who doubles in tempo. 2. A partner who makes a slow forcing pass will, in general, have a weaker hand, certainly for constructive purposes, than one who passes in tempo. That was part of the issue in "Do I Owe an Apology?". 3. In many constructive auctions, a player who tanks before making an obvious call (e.g., 1Nt - *2c) is frequently showing doubt about whether his values will really support that action. 4. In your 1C-1S-(slow)3S example, the notion that the hesitation communicates extras more often than sub-standard values is simply wrong. As a statistical matter, 15-point hands are, a priori, significantly more commmon than 18-pointers, and I would argue that the hesitation is thus, on average, more likely to suggest the former than the latter. But the point is that neither one can be at all reliable as an inference. If your partner makes a slow 3S bid in this auction, then your best action is apt to be whatever it would've been after a bid in tempo. To rely on your recommended principle fails to protect the NOS in those situations where the hesitation really does suggest a more conservative approach, and at the same time unduly penalizes the hesitators when the UI actually doesn't point in any particular direction. What's wrong with judging each case on the facts of that case, determining the LA's and "suggested bys" within the context of the facts at hand? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 00:53:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:46 +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 AAA09526 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tuaM-0003Yt-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:53:13 +0000 Message-ID: <9AxiXKATVmZ3EwqA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:38:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity References: <003e01beb6f1$ac9e9480$c1d67ad1@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <003e01beb6f1$ac9e9480$c1d67ad1@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >From: >> The director ruled average plus to us, average minus to the "offenders" >Was >> this reasonable? >No, but the actual score requires thought. If 2H is correctly explained as >hearts, W will compete or invite in spades. E could accept or decline. >3N will make if E can force N to allow an entry to the spades in dummy, so >the most favorable likely result for the non-offenders is 3N making by E/W. >That's my ruling. Hirsch has, IMO, covered all the bases. North has no UI, and can do what he likes, unless he is fielding a misbid, which seems a procedure confined to GBritain! South has a routine 3H bid. You always look at MI on UI hands where explanations are being made. I do not actually agree with Hirsch's ruling, though. I think it is reaching too far to assume that anyone is incompetent enough to let 3NT make on this hand. I could imaging 3S being let through so I would rule 140 to E/W. -- 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 Jun 16 00:53:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:48 +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 AAA09528 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tuaM-0002ik-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:53:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:34:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L55A References: <3764DEB1.791F52A9@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >wayne wrote: >>L55A >> >>If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either >>defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its >>retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). >> >>I had the following situation on Saturday: >> >>Declarer led out of turn and one defender wanted to accept the lead and >>the other wanted it retracted. >> >>How do you resolve this. > > Go with the first answer. I have rightly received flak for this for failing to quote an authority. Ok, I do not believe there is anything in the Laws to say how to act, so my two authorities for this are TD Training in England, which effectively means that it is an English "interpretation", and Duplicate Decisions, which means it is an ACBL interpretation. I cannot find it in the EBL TD Guide. Does anyone have a text version of Duplicate Decisions? Chyah? I have purchased one so I am not trying to get it for free! However, quoting therefrom would be far easier if I had a text or Word version. The relevant part of Duplicate Decisions says: 55. Declarer's Lead Out of Turn The Laws state that either opponent may accept or require retraction of a lead out of turn by declarer. (Note: if the lead out of turn was due to misinformation from an opponent, see Law 47.E.) The Laws do not state specifically how this should be handled. The proper method of extending the defenders their rights is as follows: 1. The Director should advise the defenders that either of them may accept or reject the lead. They are not allowed to consult and the first to speak will speak for the partnership. 2. The Director should explain that if a defender chooses to reject the lead, declarer must lead from the correct hand but IS NOT REQUIRED TO LEAD THE SAME SUIT. The card incorrectly led will be restored to its proper hand with no further penalty and declarer will make any legal play from the correct hand. 3. If no one has yet spoken up, the Director should say, "If neither of you cares to accept the lead, declarer will be required to lead from the proper hand," pause for a moment, and then so direct the declarer. If a defender requests a little more time to ponder his decision, the Director should honor the request. NOTES: if simultaneous acceptance and rejection occur, the Director should give preference to the wishes of the defender next to play after the irregular lead. In cases where a player adopts a line of play that could have been based on information gained from his own infraction, the Director should warn the players that an adjusted score might be awarded. -- 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 Jun 16 00:53:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:49 +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 AAA09527 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tuaM-0002ij-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:53:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:17:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment References: <199906082153.RAA01729@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.1.32.19990609133944.006fc3cc@pop.cais.com> <+13uM2BlcbZ3EwZX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001c01beb72a$57afc8c0$831b25cb@dynamite.com.au> In-Reply-To: <001c01beb72a$57afc8c0$831b25cb@dynamite.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Canberra Bridge Club wrote: >$$$ I was following your argument until you dismissed 1A. Could you give an >example of an incident involving multiple infractions where these >infractions are not linked? An insufficient bid followed by a bid out of turn? A lead during the auction followed by an insufficient bid! However, on thinking about it, it was a weak argument. Perhaps better is to say that there is no apparent justification for the principle in the Laws, and we use the principle when there is no other guide in the Laws: here we have the word "illegal" in L63. -- 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 Jun 16 00:53:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA09547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:46 +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 AAA09529 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:53:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10tuaM-0002il-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:53:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:27:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: What is the lead penalty? 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 , David Stevenson > writes > >snip Withdrawn calls and 26A >> >> What about a 2-suited bid? If the two suits are fully specified [as >>in a Michaels 2C showing spades and hearts] then L26A applies, and both > ^^^^ >>suits can be required or forbidden unless they were shown elsewhere in >>the auction. > >One point of clarification required: > >Do you mean either one or the other, or do you mean both spades and >hearts? Can I ban a Spade lead and ban a Heart lead as well; or just >ban or require one or the other? Obviously I can't require both :)) Only one suit: L26A2 includes "... or prohibit offender's partner from leading the specified suit (or one particular specified suit) at his first turn to lead ...". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 01:20:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:20:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA09655 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:20:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from default ([12.75.78.208]) by mtiwmhc06.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with SMTP id <19990615151940.ESFH17213@default> for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:19:40 +0000 Message-ID: <01aa01beb742$58b47aa0$ce2a4b0c@default> From: "Richard F Beye" To: "BLML" References: <2wGEOiAA$aZ3Ewph@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: disputed claim Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:00:51 -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: John (MadDog) Probst > A quick poll please, not a lot of discussion :)) > > I had two claims with insufficient statements and with outstanding > trumps tonight at the YC. One was routine, this is the other:- > > J9 spades trump > Qx North and East immaterial > - > - > 10 > A > - > Qx > South claims: "playing clubs" having forgotten the trumps :)) > My ruling gave 2 tricks to South. > > 1) C ruffed > 2) xH return > 3) C ruffed > 4) S10 wins. > > It is clear that at trick 3 South might lead a trump, but he made no > statement in this respect, so I viewed that his only statement was still > in force, and there was no "doubtful point" L70A and so he continues > with clubs (Which would be obvious if West held S98). > > Who would award 3 tricks to East? I thought it close but I don't think > it needs a lot of discussion. Just a vote please with any supporting > comment. It's interesting, I'll publish the result. > 2 Tricks - At first I didn't think it was close. But I agree with John, it is close. Richard Beye From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 01:31:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:31:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f103.hotmail.com [207.82.250.222]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA09693 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:30:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 90565 invoked by uid 0); 15 Jun 1999 15:29:46 -0000 Message-ID: <19990615152946.90564.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:29:45 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: What is the lead penalty? Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:29:45 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson: >When an action is withdrawn, L26 applies to Lead Penalties. What about a >2-suited bid? If the two suits are fully specified >[as in a Michaels 2C >showing spades and hearts] then L26A applies, >and both suits can be >required or forbidden unless they were shown >elsewhere in the auction. If >the two suits are not fully specified >[as in a Michaels 2H showing spades >and a minor] then L26B applies, >and any one suit can be forbidden. > > Suppose we have a Michaels 2C bid, and later in the auction, the >player who withdrew it shows hearts: what then? According to L26A1, >there is no penalty as far as hearts are concerned, but L26A2 still >applies to spades, which may be required or forbidden. > Ok, this is easy to follow, and makes sense. Now, I'm only confused about the other situation. What if we have a Michaels 2H (spades and a minor), and then later in the auction, the player who withdrew the bid shows diamonds? Are both suits now fully specified (so L26A2 applies to spades) or are we still in L26B (any one suit)? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 01:41:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:41:10 +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 BAA09715 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:40:58 +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 KAA92532 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:40:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EZ8401J Tue, 15 Jun 99 10:39:43 Message-ID: <9906151039.0EZ8401@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 10:39:43 Subject: DO I OWE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is interesting. Apparently most players require the 4S bidder to have a high honor, but not all. The consultant that allows partner the judgement to bid 4S without a high honor would have bid 5S after the pass. And the consultants that required a high honor tended to go straight to 6S. It was suggested that the partnership was one that allowed the 4S call without the high honor, and I do not remember any evidence that said the partnership required a high honor for the 4S call. The double of 5C sounds like he was catering to the possibility that partner bid 4S without the spade ace. Roger Pewick B>At 09:39 AM 6/14/99 -0700, John wrote: B>>Eric: B>> B>>You're the second to posit that 6S is on opposite some very poor hands. B>> B>>13 total tricks - two cashing aces = fewer than 12 tricks. B>> B>>Just helping... B>Blush. I guess I should have taken a second look at the original hand B>before writing that last message. B>I did, however, give the hand (with no mention of the huddle) to a B>number of good players at a bridge party over the weekend (all of whom, B>BTW, played this 4D bid showing S+D). Only one (out of seven) was B>prepared to make allowances for partner's having bid 4S without the SA B>(he bid 5S in the problem position). Nobody considered passing; B>everyone else either bid 6S in the problem position, or bid 6S directly B>over 5C on the previous round. B>In any event, I've seen nothing to talk me out of my original analysis. B>The double of 5C created a force. Partner is very unlikely to have been B>thinking of bidding 6S over 5H, as he has no idea your hand is this B>good. B>The most likely explanation for the huddle is that he is very weak and B>was considering a "shut up" double. So the huddle, if it suggests B>anything, suggests treading carefully, i.e. makes 5S more attractive B>relative to 6S. B>I no longer have Alan's original message, but I seem to recall (although B>nobody seems to have picked up on it) a statement to the effect that 6S B>was not such a good contract, but did make. That would lend some B>additional weight to the contention that 6S was not based on partner's B>huddle. IMO, if that hand had bid 5S and took a normal 11 tricks, B>there'd be at least as good a case for adjusting to 6S-1 based on the UI B>from the huddle as there is to do the opposite here, which tells me that B>the "demonstrably suggested" test fails. 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, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 01:41:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:41:36 +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 BAA09723 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:41:16 +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 KAA92536 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:41:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0EZA001K Tue, 15 Jun 99 10:39:47 Message-ID: <9906151039.0EZA001@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 10:39:47 Subject: CHICAGO NABC To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk NS open ALL 12 hcp hands. The indicated capacity of the hands has probably been reached at 3C if N has a stout four card club holding. That means that south's bid is predicated on north having 12 hcp and guessing about 5-4 distribution. Therefore, south's 3N call promises the 'magic hand'- based on AI. The break in tempo suggested that he may not have it. North's hand is perfect opposite the magic hand. North's argument is no where near convincing, yet it was the basis for a different ruling by the AC. Roger Pewick B>This case from the *Looped in Chicago* casebook did not appear in B>the NABC Daily Bulletin, and is not to my knowledge published on the B>internet. (Still waiting for all appeals to be published, which I B>thought was the plan). I think it may be of interest to BLML. B>Flight A Pairs, 1 Aug 1998, Qualifying Session B>Vulnerability: N/S B>Dealer East B> S- A10 B> H- 10 B> D- A7432 B> C- A10543 B>S- 862 S- K974 B>H- J96 H- A8543 B>D- QJ86 D- 95 B>C- QJ9 C- K6 B> S- QJ53 B> H- KQ72 B> D- K10 B> C- 872 B>The bidding: B>West North East South B> - - Pass Pass B>Pass 1D 1H Dbl B>2H 3C Pass 3NT* B>Pass 4C All pass B>* Break in tempo B>The Facts: 4C made four, plus 130 for N/S. The Director ruled that B>after the agreed break in tempo before the 3NT bid North's 4C bid B>was a LA that was disallowed (Law 73F1). The contract was changed to B>3NT down one, plus 100 for E/W. B>The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North stated that B>N/S's style was to open all 12 HCP hands. North knew the N/S assets B>were at most 23 HCP and he could not construct any hand for South B>that would produce a good play for a notrump game. His aces and B>shape argued for suit declaration. He thus concluded that he had no B>LA but to bid 4C. B>The Committee Decision: The Committee determined that South could B>hold the heart AQ and a minor-suit king-queen which would produce a B>play for 3NT. The likelihood that South held this perfect hand and B>that the suit distribution would also be friendly was deemed too B>remote to meet the criteria of LA. Therefore, the Committee accepted B>North's reasoning that pass was not a LA. North was escaping from a B>probable negative position to a contract that was likely to produce B>a plus score. The Committee decided that no player with the B>authorized information available to North would seriously consider B>passing 3NT. The Committee changed the contract to 4C made four, B>plus 130 for N/S. [Chairman's note: A Committee of two was empaneled B>with North's agreement due to severe time constraints.] B>Committee: Jon Brissman (chair), Dick Budd B>-------------------------------------------------------------------- B>--------- B>I would like to quote all of Larry Cohen and Ron Gerard's comments B>about this case, but they are too strong for this staid forum. Well, B>one sentence from Gerard: "Gentlemen, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU B>THINKING ABOUT?" He rattled off four hands for South, with 11, 10, B>9, and 6(!) HCP, that would provide an excellent play for 3NT. B>The case is a counter to the arguments of the ACBL AC, published in B>*The Bridge Bulletin*, that TDs can't do as good a job as ACs when B>it comes to adjudicating matters having to do with bidding. On the B>other hand, the panelists' comments were split about 50-50 for and B>against the decision, with one favorable comment (Brissman's) B>possibly biased. B>An interesting angle from one panelist was that 3NT should be given B>the benefit of the doubt because South's hand "is strongly B>representative of the holding North could expect on the auction." B>Rich Colker knocked that down: Taking an action based on UI "cannot B>be permitted, regardless of the actual card holdings." B>Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 01:48:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:48:52 +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 BAA09754 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:48:44 +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 IAA04213; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:47:59 -0700 Message-Id: <199906151547.IAA04213@mailhub.irvine.com> To: RCraigH@aol.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:47:37 PDT." Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:47:59 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I sat east for this hand. Please comment > > S K654 > H 2 > D AQ52 > C AT64 > S AQJT8 S 93 > H 74 H AQJ > D J76 D K983 > C 532 C KQJ3 > S 72 > H KT98653 > D T4 > C 97 > > The auction was; > W N E S > Pass 1D 1NT 2H* > Pass 2S Pass 3H > Pass Pass Pass > > 2H was alerted as a transfer. > > 3H was not accompanied by any clear body language or mannerism from which one > could suggest that north received direct UI that the 2H call was natural, > rather than as alerted. > > Over north's pass I called the director and requested protection against a > possible irregularity. After he arrived and the situation was explained, I > passed and when dummy was presented, I suggested that the dummy had a > dramatic preference for spades yet had passed. No further explanation of > the two heart bid was offered prior to the conclusion of the bidding. > > The result was down 1, on the lead of a diamond and a club shift. > > It would appear from the discussion that 2H was NOT a transfer. Let that be > the factual basis for this case. North was mistaken in his announcement. > > South clearly had unauthorized information from the announcement. Does > North? Is south permitted to correct to 3H? Shouldn't he act as if north > held 5 spades and six diamonds, perhaps a heart void for pulling from 2H to > 2S? No. I assume N-S aren't playing Precision; therefore, North could have quite a strong hand for his 1D opening. With almost any hand substantially stronger than a minimum, North isn't going to pass 2H---he's going to take some other action. So I'd simply assume 2S shows a strong hand and something in spades, perhaps only a 4-card suit or even a good 3-card suit. I would assume 2S is forcing, although I could be wrong about this. In any case, there's no reason to assume that North has to have a 5-6 hand to make this bid. So I rule 3H was not based on UI. MI is still a problem, as others have pointed out. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 01:53:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA09775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:53:09 +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 BAA09770 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:52:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.8.8/8.8.7) id LAA21502 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:52:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <199906151552.LAA21502@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:52:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <002401beb6aa$ef2f42a0$3a57accf@hdavis> from "Hirsch Davis" at Jun 14, 99 05:14:35 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 Hirsch Davis writes: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ron Johnson > To: > Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 10:14 AM > Subject: Re: DO I OWE AN A > > > > Eric Landau writes: > > > > > > At 10:37 AM 6/11/99 -0400, Ron wrote: Before getting started, let me say that it's quite clear that regardless of the theoretical merits of any given treatment, the vast majority of would treat West's pass as forcing. Thus like it or not (and I don't) pass is not a LA for East. It's pretty clear that I think most people are wrong here, but that's a bridge judgement and would seem to have nothing to do with the ruling at hand. As such, I'll be happy to continue discussing the auction via private email, but it seems very much off topic for the list. > > [snip] > > > > >What does pass show? And why should it be forcing? > > > > > > It is forcing because your double of 5C created a force; you > > > should not be doubling 5C unless you're prepared to act over > > > 5H. Why did you double 5C, when you knew the opponents weren't > > > going to play there? It looks to me like the reason was > > > specifically to *create* a forcing position over 5H. > > > > It's become clear that mine is a minority view. However I don't > > agree with anything you wrote here. > > > > In my view the double to 5C should be descriptive and make partner > > captain. Is there any reason that it should not be 5=0=5=3 with > > extra values? > > Why do you think these views are mutually exclusive? The player opposite > the doubler *was* made captain, as the doubler had passed the decision. If > he had doubled, 5Hx would have been the contract. But he didn't. Instead, > he made a pass, which IMO was forcing, sending the decision back to the > player who doubled 5C. You have a very different understanding of captaincy than I do. If West was captain, his pass is most emphaticly not forcing. It's a statement that defending 5H undoubled is the best contract for his side. > > > > But it doesn't matter. This treatment of 4D (S+D) is very popular > > > around here, and I don't know anyone who would think that you hold > > > anything close to a minimum. Once partner bids 4S, passing 5H isn't > > > an LA even if partner's pass wasn't forcing. > > > > Again, why? Is 4D played unlimited? > > Yes. And forcing? Then East is either minimum or sub-minimum. > > > 4S is *not* a free bid as several people have stated. > > What exactly do you mean by "free bid"? The player can pass and his > partner will have another turn to call. Sounds like a free bid to me. > There is a lot of pressure due to the leaping auction, so the free bid > may be made on far less values than are normally implied by the term. It's not a free bid in the sense of promising *any* values. That's what I was objecting to in the previous comment. Partner has underwritten 8 tricks opposite random balanced garbage. But if West passes and 4S doubled is the correct contact for EW, how is partner supposed to know? Or is the 4D call forcing to 4S? > > > And it can be made on a lot of relatively bad hands. > > Agreed. > > > Among other things it denies a cue to them. Besides > > partner has underwritten relative safety at the 4 level. > > Almost any weak hand that prefers spades to diamonds has > > a perfectly rational 4S call. > > > The UI conveys nothing. It doesn't say whether partner was almost ready to > double, or almost ready to bid on. I can't think of a call, including > double, that would meet the criterion of "demonstrably suggested" on this > auction. If we stipulate that pass is forcing, no. And there would appear to be a *very* strong consenus that it is. So the hypothetical AC's first must determine whether or not it would be for this particular partnership. I'd guess they would rule that it is. I disagree that it should be. Indeed as I said in another post, not only would I consider passing, I would in fact pass. But this thread has convinced me that the ruling should more than likely be result stands. -- RNJ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 02:05:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA09983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:05:13 +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 CAA09978 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:05:01 +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 JAA04500; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:04:22 -0700 Message-Id: <199906151604.JAA04500@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:38:11 PDT." <9AxiXKATVmZ3EwqA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:04:23 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I do not actually agree with Hirsch's ruling, though. I think it is > reaching too far to assume that anyone is incompetent enough to let 3NT > make on this hand. I disagree. Since North opened 1D, it seems likely that South, figuring there's no point in trying to set up his heart suit with no entries, will lead the D10. This will result in three diamond tricks for declarer; declarer will also get two spades, and there should be time to set up two clubs and two hearts, since the defense, with four obvious tricks, can't do anything to set up a fifth trick. -- Adam > S K654 > H 2 > D AQ52 > C AT64 > S AQJT8 S 93 > H 74 H AQJ > D J76 D K983 > C 532 C KQJ3 > S 72 > H KT98653 > D T4 > C 97 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 02:11:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:11:08 +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 CAA10004 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:11:00 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14389) by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id cHBAa10677; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:08:01 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: rbeye@worldnet.att.net, 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 6/15/99 10:39:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rbeye@worldnet.att.net writes: > INCORRECT! I know of no ACBL policy that is in opposition to the Laws. I > suggest that Eric preface statements such as the one made above with 'In My > Very Humble Opinion.' I hope Bruce will take the time to read Law 40. > Kojak here. Bravo, Richard!! Adding the "V" to the "H" seems most appropriate to this posting. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 02:17:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:17:08 +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 CAA10037 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:16:56 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14389) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id mTVCa17475; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19fc043e.2497d57e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 12:12:46 EDT Subject: Re: establishment To: bridge@dynamite.com.au, 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 6/15/99 8:39:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@dynamite.com.au writes: > We then got a post from Kojak. In it he says that no-one has the > > *right* to make a call that establishes a revoke once attention has been > > drawn. He did *not* say that this means he supports the view that the > > revoke was not established when partner called illegally. It has been > > assumed by others that this is what Kojak meant. I do not know: no > > doubt he can make his meaning clear if he wishes. Kojak here. I apologize for my poor use of English. I mean that according to Law 62A and Law 9B2 we have come to a stop in the play. Reading all the MUSTS and SHALLS involved, and the sequential violations occurring, the revoke IS NOT established, nor can it become established by any action of any of the players. The crucial point, IMHO (notice I used the H, David) is that we don't change the nature of the first infraction --- the failure to follow suit --- by a subsequent action which is taken in violaton of another Law. I find it very difficult to read Law 62A, understand the sequence therein, and find that an action taken in violation of Law 9 negates these instructions. Using the disliked word - I CLEARLY remember discussions with Edgar as to the manner in which multiple violations of Law should be handled. I agree that his word "was" Law but no longer "is" - the process to change that has not yet taken place, so pragmatically we continue with what we have. I am not supporting any particular view, I'm just telling you how I (and my assistants) will act in the WBF when these posts on which I comment occur, unless I am instructed otherwise by official action of the WBFLC. For David. You state ..... >>"The offender's partner played in defiance of L9B2 and thus illegally......" Yep, he played when the Law said he shouldn't, and Law47A tells us what happens to it. Also please read Law 60C which says that its a boo-boo which might incur it's own penalty. It certainly doesn't say that it changes the previous violation, does it? What is of great interest to me is what happens now. BLML has gone through long and torturous postings, flip flops, opinions, etc. And apparently has arrived at an impasse over what is the proper action for the TD to take. Do we now go along our individual ways, or can there be an agreed path to follow until further official word comes from the WBFLC? And where does this leave the provision of Law 81C5, and the many TDs and ACs on this mortal coil? Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 02:42:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA10087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:42:25 +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 CAA10082 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:42:13 +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 LAA95280 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:41:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0GFM801U Tue, 15 Jun 99 11:41:53 Message-ID: <9906151141.0GFM801@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 11:41:53 Subject: UNAUTHORI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au () Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk North has information that he has incorrectly alerted/explained partner's call and he has concealed that fact from the opponents. Based on AI 3H is a game invitation in spades and not a suggestion to play hearts unless partner has at least 3 hearts and less than 3 spades. Given North's major suit holdings, it is evident that his pass was based on a concealed understanding. Roger Pewick >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 11:47 PM >Subject: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity >> I sat east for this hand. Please comment >> >> S K654 >> H 2 >> D AQ52 >> C AT64 >> S AQJT8 S 93 >> H 74 H AQJ >> D J76 D K983 >> C 532 C KQJ3 >> S 72 >> H KT98653 >> D T4 >> C 97 >> >> The auction was; >> W N E S >> Pass 1D 1NT 2H* >> Pass 2S Pass 3H >> Pass Pass Pass >> >> 2H was alerted as a transfer. >> >> 3H was not accompanied by any clear body language or mannerism from >which one >> could suggest that north received direct UI that the 2H call was >natural, > rather than as alerted. >> >> Over north's pass I called the director and requested protection >against a > possible irregularity. After he arrived and the situation >was explained, I >> passed and when dummy was presented, I suggested that the dummy had a >> dramatic preference for spades yet had passed. No further explanation >of > the two heart bid was offered prior to the conclusion of the >bidding. >> >> The result was down 1, on the lead of a diamond and a club shift. >> >> It would appear from the discussion that 2H was NOT a transfer. Let >that be >> the factual basis for this case. North was mistaken in his >announcement. -s- Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 03:07:58 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:07:58 +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 DAA10129 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:07:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu (grabiner@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu [141.211.60.210]) by ect.math.lsa.umich.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA15054 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:07:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:07:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906151707.NAA17917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19990615104844.0193fc84@pop.mindspring.com> (msd@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: Hesitate and Shoot? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael S. Dennis writes: > At 02:38 PM 6/15/99 +1000, Peter wrote: >> I think that a much more reasonable and practical approach is to assume >> that hesitations show extra values and disallow LAs that take advantage of >> this. As a practical matter I think most hesitations are because of extra >> values rather than anything else. > As a matter of relative frequency, I suspect you're right. But the large > and significant number of exceptions to that principle make it an > ineffective tool for adjudication. I don't think either assumption should be used unless players are expected to be aware of the inference. In many cases, the hesitation is one-directional. A slow pass in a competitive auction demonstrably suggests extra values, and thus that partner bid on. A slow refusal of an invitation demonstrably suggests a near-acceptance. A slow penalty double demonstrably suggests marginal defense (or extra offense in a forcing pass situation), and thus that partner pull. But a hesitation, or other UI, which could suggest A over B or B over A should not put any restriction on the hesitator's partner unless there is some reason (a published ruling, or his own hand) that the partner should know which one is suggested. For example, If West sacrifices in 5H over South's 4S, and North makes a slow forcing pass, an ethical South whose hand makes double and 5S both LA's will choose the one not suggested by the UI. If there is an interpretation that the UI suggests double, and South therefore chooses to bid 5S, there should be no adjustment even if North does have extras and 5S is the right bid. On the other hand, if South's hearts and the bidding mark North with a void, then South can work out that North was considering 5S, and then South does have a responsibility to double if that is an LA. > 1. A partner who makes a slow and uncertain penalty double is generally > showing _lesser_ values, at least in the sense of defensive prospects, than > one who doubles in tempo. This is a clear case. > 2. A partner who makes a slow forcing pass will, in general, have a weaker > hand, certainly for constructive purposes, than one who passes in tempo. > That was part of the issue in "Do I Owe an Apology?". I don't have the casebook yet, but this is the example in which I would not expect either LA to be demonstrably suggested. > 3. In many constructive auctions, a player who tanks before making an > obvious call (e.g., 1Nt - *2c) is frequently showing doubt about whether > his values will really support that action. This is an example of a ruling which makes sense, but should not be applied unless players are expected to know about it. If opener's RHO bids 2S, an opener who is aware of the UI implications and has a minimum with four hearts must bid 3H. But this case is agreement-dependent. I play two-way Stayman, and when I tank before bidding 2C, I am just as likely to have been considering 2D as passing. > 4. In your 1C-1S-(slow)3S example, the notion that the hesitation > communicates extras more often than sub-standard values is simply wrong. As > a statistical matter, 15-point hands are, a priori, significantly more > commmon than 18-pointers, and I would argue that the hesitation is thus, on > average, more likely to suggest the former than the latter. But the point > is that neither one can be at all reliable as an inference. If your partner > makes a slow 3S bid in this auction, then your best action is apt to be > whatever it would've been after a bid in tempo. Thix is another two-directional example. There is also a third possibility here; the hesitation amy suggest an off-shape hand. What is opener to do with KQx AQJ x Axxxxx? 2H, 3C, and 3S will all be considered. -- 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 Jun 16 03:23:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA10163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:23:37 +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 DAA10158 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 03:23:23 +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 RAA28768 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:22:42 GMT Message-ID: <37668BF1.1A3BC432@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:22:57 +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: UNAUTHORI References: <9906151141.0GFM801@bbs.hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org a écrit : > North has information that he has incorrectly alerted/explained partner's > call and he has concealed that fact from the opponents. Based on AI 3H is a > game invitation in spades and not a suggestion to play hearts unless partner > has at least 3 hearts and less than 3 spades. Given North's major suit > holdings, it is evident that his pass was based on a concealed > understanding. Due to your absence of conclusion, I fail to understand where you wish to go. What is an infraction is Concealed Partnership Understanding (CPU), and here you speak of CU. As I understand alert procedure Partnership understandings are public and must be disclosed and other Understandings are private. I can see problems with MI to EW but no problem with North's bidding. When he only acts with AI, he may misbid or choose to bid in a direction different to the one suggested by AI. JP Rocafort > > > Roger Pewick > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >To: > >Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 11:47 PM > >Subject: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity > > >> I sat east for this hand. Please comment > >> > >> S K654 > >> H 2 > >> D AQ52 > >> C AT64 > >> S AQJT8 S 93 > >> H 74 H AQJ > >> D J76 D K983 > >> C 532 C KQJ3 > >> S 72 > >> H KT98653 > >> D T4 > >> C 97 > >> > >> The auction was; > >> W N E S > >> Pass 1D 1NT 2H* > >> Pass 2S Pass 3H > >> Pass Pass Pass > >> > >> 2H was alerted as a transfer. > >> > >> 3H was not accompanied by any clear body language or mannerism from > >which one > >> could suggest that north received direct UI that the 2H call was > >natural, > rather than as alerted. > >> > >> Over north's pass I called the director and requested protection > >against a > possible irregularity. After he arrived and the situation > >was explained, I > >> passed and when dummy was presented, I suggested that the dummy had a > >> dramatic preference for spades yet had passed. No further explanation > >of > the two heart bid was offered prior to the conclusion of the > >bidding. > >> > >> The result was down 1, on the lead of a diamond and a club shift. > >> > >> It would appear from the discussion that 2H was NOT a transfer. Let > >that be > >> the factual basis for this case. North was mistaken in his > >announcement. > > -s- > Roger Pewick > Houston, Texas > r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org > ___ > *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Jun 16 08:40:33 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:40:33 +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 IAA10248 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:40:24 +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 OAA17104 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990615134751.0070ed18@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:47:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <017a01beb73c$545797e0$ce2a4b0c@default> References: <3.0.1.32.19990615092551.00710090@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:35 AM 6/15/99 -0500, Richard wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > >> At 12:10 AM 6/15/99 -0400, Bruce wrote: >> >> > The ACBL seems to change gears every so often. There are >> >several mistakes they've made and corrected in this period. This >> >seems like a whopper. >> > >> > Does anyone know if this is still ACBL policy? It seems quite >> >odd to have a policy that in spirit, if not in letter, contradicts the >> >Laws. >> >> Nothing has been published in the Bulletin on the subject since Oakie's >> article, so that article still stands as the most recent statement of >> policy by the ACBL to its membership. > >INCORRECT! I know of no ACBL policy that is in opposition to the Laws. I >suggest that Eric preface statements such as the one made above with 'In My >Very Humble Opinion.' I hope Bruce will take the time to read Law 40. OK. In My Very Humble Opinion, nothing has been published in the Bulletin on the subject since Oakie's article, so that article still stands as the most recent statement of policy by the ACBL to its membership. Better? No ACBL policy is in opposition to the laws -- according to the ACBL, which has proven itself quite adept at making interpretations that open up loopholes through by which they can get around the laws as most others read them. Nobody here has really suggested that they violate the laws per se; rather, as Bruce writes, they manage to conform to the letter of the law while doing violence to its spirit. Anyone who doubts this need only try playing 10-12 1NT openings in ACBL competition, opening 1NT on, say, K109/QJ109/Q109/J109, and seeing what happens next. I invite Richard, and anyone else who thinks that the ACBL's policy on psychs reflects the spirit of the law, to read L40A, then read the stated policy, either in Mr. Oakie's original Bulletin article or in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge's article on "Psychic Bidding". In My Very Humble Opinion, the latter speaks for itself ("The American Contract Bridge League has taken steps to reduce the usage of psychic bids... Where psychic bids are concerned... the need to disclose implicit understandings has the effect of practically preventing their use."). 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 Jun 16 08:44:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:44:29 +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 IAA10271 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:44:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id OAA04907 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:51:15 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906151951.OAA04907@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:51:15 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Richard Bley wrote: > > >What really surprises me in this case is this enthusiasm about L12A1. Well > >let´s examin L12A1 then. > >What do you need to use 12A1? > >L12A1: > >1. Laws Provide No Indemnity > >The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these > >Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the > >particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. > > > >The particular type of violation here is a quite common one: a revoke. One > >of the most frequent mistakes in bridge. > >The words "particular type of violation" seems more like a hint that this > >law in only applicable when there is a violation of laws which is not > >covered by the rules. But a revoke is covered by the laws. > > The particular situation is not covered by the Laws. It is the > multiple event that is the complication. But that's not what the law says. The violation was a revoke. There are laws dealing with a revoke. The fact that declarer claimed did not change the nature of the violation itself in any way. > >Ok E hat revoked. But he didnt claim. It was his opp who claims. > > So? So East has not committed any _further_ or _different_ violation from a simple revoke. There are specified penalties for a simple revoke. So L12A1 does not apply. > >Another point: > >"indemnity" means that a player is in a disadvantage because the opps > >violated the laws. But: The one trick the NO-player lost by the violation > >he gets back. > > That is not the point. If he had played the hand out he might have > got two tricks, he might have got one. If he had picked a card at > random, and said "I am conceding, playing this card" then he might have > got two tricks, he might have got one. You are giving him one trick > because his action is based on his opponent's infraction. That most certainly _is_ the point. L12A1 is meant to cover cases in which someone _loses out_ because the opponent committed an irregularity for which there is no assigned redress. One cannot claim that the NOS did not recevie indemnity for the revoke--they did, as we are all agreed that they are to be awarded {at least} one trick. They recevied indemnity for the particular violation of laws. > Stop thinking about declarer: think about his opponent: you are sure > it is right to give him the benefit of the doubt because he revoked? I have yet to see a law that tells me anything different. :):):) And what about L12B? Aren't you giving a two-trick penalty because you judge that the one-trick penalty is unduly advantageous to the Os? [I, of course, still think L84D explicitly forbids using L12A1 in this case, but you've already said you don't think that.] > >The problem is if you give a two-trick penalty for this revoke you are give > >a player an advantage if he is claiming instead of playing on. He might get > >more tricks by claiming than by playing. BUT that is exactly what the laws > >didnt want by writing 70A. > > This is wrong, completely wrong. I am giving him the benefit of his > opponent revoking. Exactly. You are giving more tricks to someone who _Concedes_ than to someone who plays the hand out. Are _you_ sure the law requires you to do _that_? > >Next time I realize my opps revoked I will draw trumps and claim (with > >some words about a finesse, a squeeze...) and then will get my 2-trick > >penalty only if the revoker might win a trick afterwards with his revoke > >card. I hope you will be my TD then. > > Next time I revoke I hope you will be m director since you do not wish > to penalise me for the revoke. Maybe you'll be lucky, and have me instead. I don't _want_ to _penalize_ revokes either, although I do so when L64 tells me too. Besides, I thought L12A1 'wasn't a penalizing law'. :) > >PS: > >The discussion about the fictitious trick in 64A2 just shows me why this is > >not true. You usually cannot tell if the player will win another trick. > >E.g.: what will happen if E wins only a trick in the revoke suit if he is > >not aware (some unusual sort of endplay I guess...). Will you give two tricks? > > Why not? I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the side who did not > commit any infraction: you are not. Just out of curiousity, take another case: North irrelevant. West has AKT of spades. East has J spades, and 52 is diamonds. South has 63 in diamonds, and the 2 of spades. It is clear from the bidding and the play that West has three high spades. East has previously revoked _in spades_. South concedes the remaining tricks, not realizing his diamond 6 is high. How do you rule? It seems to me that _you_ must rule that South plays a _spade_ and not a diamond, and to give South the benefit of the doubt on the infraction West must play low on the spade letting East win the trick, triggering the two-trick penalty. East, of course, now leads a low diamond, and South takes the last two tricks as well. So by conceding South has not only taken two of the three tricks after the concession, but has triggered a two-trick penalty as well! Is this what L12A1 tells us to do? Suppose on the trick before this, South has another winner in his hand in a suit in which East is void. He now claims one trick [still forgetting the diamond]. Do we have to forbid East from discarding his worthless J spades as well? > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 08:47:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA10296 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:47:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.147.254]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990615224915.LCZ311284.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:49:15 +1200 Message-ID: <3766D775.8C9E6E57@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:45:09 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Re: disputed claim References: <2wGEOiAA$aZ3Ewph@probst.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > A quick poll please, not a lot of discussion :)) > > I had two claims with insufficient statements and with outstanding > trumps tonight at the YC. One was routine, this is the other:- > > J9 spades trump > Qx North and East immaterial > - > - > 10 > A > - > Qx > South claims: "playing clubs" having forgotten the trumps :)) > My ruling gave 2 tricks to South. > > 1) C ruffed > 2) xH return > 3) C ruffed > 4) S10 wins. > > It is clear that at trick 3 South might lead a trump, but he made no > statement in this respect, so I viewed that his only statement was still > in force, and there was no "doubtful point" L70A and so he continues > with clubs (Which would be obvious if West held S98). > > Who would award 3 tricks to East? I thought it close but I don't think > it needs a lot of discussion. Just a vote please with any supporting > comment. It's interesting, I'll publish the result. > > Name: > Vote(2 or 3): > Comment: > > Cheers > -- > 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 L70A In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows... IMO "as equitably as possible" suggests two tricks each. However if by thinking it is close you mean you had some doubt then you must rule against the claimer - "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". I think that if declarer was unaware of a trump being out then and was playing clubs then next time in will continue to play clubs. Incidently change the layout a little 9 spades trump QJx North and East immaterial - - 10 A - Qx And declarer claims without statement this illustrates how it would be careless but perhaps not irrational to play off-suits before trump. As in this case, presumably south believed his hand was high and stated his intention of playing clubs before trumps. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 08:51:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:51:03 +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 IAA10325 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:50:52 +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 PAA22529 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA04360 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 15:48:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906151948.PAA04360@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > And where does this > leave the provision of Law 81C5, and the many TDs and ACs on this mortal coil? This one, at least, I think I can answer. TD's and AC's are in much the same position they would be in without BLML. Absent official guidance, they must interpret the rules as best they can. Perhaps some people's interpretation will be different after having read the various arguments, perhaps not. At least they should be able to give a reason for having adopted a particular interpretation. Those charged with issuing official interpretations, if they are reading BLML, are now aware that there is a controversial question. They can choose to offer guidance if they think it wise to do so. And poor Grattan's notebook gets ever heavier in anticipation of 2007. (Not, of course, that the LC is _obliged_ to take action on any issue we discuss, but they have the option of considering it.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 08:58:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA10351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:58:23 +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 IAA10346 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:58:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2iveihl.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.74.53]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05460 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990615164142.0077f508@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:41:42 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: DO I OWE In-Reply-To: <9906151039.0EZ8401@bbs.hal-pc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:39 AM 6/15/99, Roger wrote: > >This is interesting. Apparently most players require the 4S bidder to have >a high honor, but not all. The consultant that allows partner the judgement >to bid 4S without a high honor would have bid 5S after the pass. And the >consultants that required a high honor tended to go straight to 6S. > >It was suggested that the partnership was one that allowed the 4S call >without the high honor, and I do not remember any evidence that said the >partnership required a high honor for the 4S call. The double of 5C sounds >like he was catering to the possibility that partner bid 4S without the >spade ace. > Nobody "requires" a high honor for the 4S call. I for one expect that the 4S call should be based on the likely expectation that the hand can take a trick or two, which JTxx,xxx,xxx,xxx falls somewhat short of. But is Jxxx, Axx,xx,xxxx a reasonable prospect for 4S? Indubitably. This is in fact fairly representative of the family of hands to which the double is catering, i.e., hands for which 6S is out of reach and 5S might be too much, but which offer the possibilty of a worthwhile penalty at 5H. The likelihood of a black ace (in particular, the spade A) in place of heart wastage is increased not by the 4S bid, but by the Pass. The double was not a suggestion to defend a club contract, which was never going to happen, but a clear and deliberate effort to establish a forcing situation. This message is perfectly consistent with the nature of the hand, because it is a near certainty that defending 5H undoubled will be wrong. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 09:05:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:05:13 +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 JAA10365 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:05:04 +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 NAA98548 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:04:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0IDCR023 Tue, 15 Jun 99 13:04:37 Message-ID: <9906151304.0IDCR02@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 13:04:37 Subject: CONCESSION AFTER REVOKE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ummmm. I have an interesting thought. EW did not accept the concession immediately and start play on the next board? Roger Pewick >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 ~ > Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 09:32:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:32:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA10435 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:32:30 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA16124; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:31:53 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma015994; Wed, 16 Jun 99 09:31:34 +1000 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.36.71]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA27825 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:31:33 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04033; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:35:00 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990616090755.0092fa40@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:31:02 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Hesitate and Shoot? In-Reply-To: <199906151707.NAA17917@yunt.math.lsa.umich.edu> References: <3.0.1.32.19990615104844.0193fc84@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 13:07 15-06-99 -0400, David Grabiner wrote: >Michael S. Dennis writes: > >> At 02:38 PM 6/15/99 +1000, Peter wrote: > >>> I think that a much more reasonable and practical approach is to assume >>> that hesitations show extra values and disallow LAs that take advantage of >>> this. As a practical matter I think most hesitations are because of extra >>> values rather than anything else. > >> As a matter of relative frequency, I suspect you're right. But the large >> and significant number of exceptions to that principle make it an >> ineffective tool for adjudication. > >I don't think either assumption should be used unless players are >expected to be aware of the inference. I agree with the comments of Michael and David - up to a point. I agree that there are a significant number of cases in which a players L16 responsibilities will depend upon the auction. Examples such as slow penalty doubles, Forcing Pass situations, hesitations before using Stayman etc. do not fall into the category of hands that I was dealing with. There are also some grey areas (eg the recent thread (that may or may not be a FP situation) about whether 6S is an LA). Obviously, each case should be dealt with according to the facts of that particular case. However, there is a genuine problem that ACs have to deal with (in my recent experience) of the neither action is suggested because the hesitation can be 2-way argument. I think that I have served on about 10 hesitation appeals in the last 6 months and well over 80% fell in the category that the hesitation really showed extra values (despite protestations to the contrary). I would be interested in the experience of other AC members on this - maybe I just have been (un)lucky. Actually, I am not of the 'hesitate and shoot' brigade at all - the last thing I want is a situation where NO bid is allowed after partner's hesitation which often appears to be the case. I am trying to get a practical solution that: (1) let players feel that they are not damaged by the opponents hesitations (2) let players play bridge as much as possible - I don't think it benefits anyone to have these things decided by ACs I don't think that the current situation achieves this. IM(V)HO a majority of cases could satisfactorily be resolved by applying my guideline - hesitation shows extra values - which would help both players and directors. Back to the wolves.... Cheers, Peter http://www.nswba.com.au -- Peter Newman Fujitsu Australia Limited +61-2-9452-9111 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 09:45:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA10476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:45:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA10470 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:45:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA21625; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:44:51 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma021598; Wed, 16 Jun 99 09:44:44 +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 JAA06334; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:44:43 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04065; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:48:06 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990616093604.009c1470@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:44:08 +1000 To: brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) From: Peter Newman Subject: Re: Hesitate and Shoot? Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <376a0ffb.6545813@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <4.1.19990615122514.0093cf00@sercit> <4.1.19990615122514.0093cf00@sercit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Glad to see you like experimenting with system - perhaps you should be playing in Oz not in the USA - we encourage innovation here [- funnily enough table numbers are also increasing]. I realise no-one wants to see OBM ruling the game least of all me. Brian Meadows wrote: >find it profoundly depressing that a game which is supposed >to be a mental exercise seems to be moving towards the ideas >expressed by Peter's choice of subject line. I don't agree with hesitate and shoot at all. It just seems where some people are dragging the game. The whole idea of my suggestion was to make it less likely that the hesitator's partner would be shot because there would be simple guidelines to follow...[perhaps it could be guidance to players on their L16 responsibilites?] >occasionally you just have to stop and see whether you can >drag the relevant paragraph or two out of your memory. There is no problem with this - if it takes 5 minutes to remember the systemic bid it doesn't matter because partner will have to bid according to that system bid anyway - the more tightly defined a bid is the less a hesitation matters because the LAs after that bid are clearcut. [For example playing relay you can take a long time to respond to show a 5-3-2-3 shape because no matter how long you take the bid ALWAYS means exactly that.] The problem that occurs in real life are typically things like: 1S (2D) 2S **hesitation pass 1C 1S hesitation 2S or hesitation 3S etc. Here the only issue is hand evaluation. Slow hand evaluation tends to suggest extras. These were the types of auctions I was talking about. Hope this helps. Cheers, Peter From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 10:17:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:17:19 +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 KAA10527 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:17:09 +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; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:58:42 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <017a01beb73c$545797e0$ce2a4b0c@default> References: <3.0.1.32.19990615092551.00710090@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:58:00 -0400 To: "Richard F Beye" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:35 AM -0400 6/15/99, Richard F Beye wrote: >INCORRECT! I know of no ACBL policy that is in opposition to the Laws. I >suggest that Eric preface statements such as the one made above with 'In My >Very Humble Opinion.' I hope Bruce will take the time to read Law 40. Okay, I'll bite. What _is_ the current official ACBL policy towards psyches? And where is it stated? 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/AwUBN2bM5r2UW3au93vOEQK4TACgrZlQSeUxKQS19MEhQamRJM+ZiL0An0Qo GK+nD9VKafXfQ0TgTDZ+JktQ =QKQ5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 10:19:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA10555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:19:25 +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 KAA10550 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:19:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-238-111.s111.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.238.111]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06669 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00bd01beb774$69cec340$6fee7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <003e01beb6f1$ac9e9480$c1d67ad1@hdavis> <9AxiXKATVmZ3EwqA@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:16:55 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 10:38 AM Subject: Re: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity [snip] > > I do not actually agree with Hirsch's ruling, though. I think it is > reaching too far to assume that anyone is incompetent enough to let 3NT > make on this hand. I could imaging 3S being let through so I would rule > 140 to E/W. > That was my first take on the hand (E/W 140), until I started playing around with it a bit. I don't think 3N can be beaten on a red suit lead, and I'm not sure it can be beaten on a black suit lead either. It will certainly take sharp defense to set 3N if E declares well. That's enough for me to give E/W the benefit of the ruling. (I'll spare everyone my analysis of the play, as that's getting more than a bit off-topic). Best wishes, Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 11:08:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:08:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10861 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:08:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10u4Bu-000EJq-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:08:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:55:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: disputed claim In-Reply-To: <2wGEOiAA$aZ3Ewph@probst.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <2wGEOiAA$aZ3Ewph@probst.demon.co.uk>, "John (MadDog) Probst" writes > >A quick poll please, not a lot of discussion :)) > >I had two claims with insufficient statements and with outstanding >trumps tonight at the YC. One was routine, this is the other:- > >J9 spades trump >Qx North and East immaterial >- >- > 10 > A > - > Qx >South claims: "playing clubs" having forgotten the trumps :)) >My ruling gave 2 tricks to South. > ok guys, thanks for the responses. some public, some private 8 for 2 tricks (2 think, like me, it was close) Names: Hirsch, Richards Bley and Beye, Peter Newman, JP Rocafort and Steve Willner, Anne and Wayne. 3 tricks. Nil. I'll take it back to the YC as I promised the player I'd poll you all. Thanks everyone -- 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 Jun 16 11:08:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA10872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:08:59 +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 LAA10865 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:08:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10u4Bx-0004cN-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:08:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 02:06:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Concession after revoke In-Reply-To: <199906151951.OAA04907@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906151951.OAA04907@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu writes >> >> That is not the point. If he had played the hand out he might have >> got two tricks, he might have got one. If he had picked a card at >> random, and said "I am conceding, playing this card" then he might have >> got two tricks, he might have got one. You are giving him one trick >> because his action is based on his opponent's infraction. > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bombshell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey guys, when we make this concession do we know that the opponents have 1S and 3C between them? So do we know that they *can't* have revoked in clubs? And do we know that they *could* have revoked in spades? So, obviously () we are exiting a spade to cater for this? Wouldn't it be irrational not to? Cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 11:43:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:43:07 +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 LAA11220 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:42:59 +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 SAA12511 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <041101beb799$56639a40$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 11 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:41:17 -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 >From the *Looped in Chicago* casebook: Daylight Open Pairs, 30 Jul 98 Board 18 Dealer East Vul: N/S S- A1076 H- K1092 D- AK7 C- K3 S- KJ S- 32 H- 64 H- A875 D- Q109853 D- J6 C- J104 C- AQ875 S- Q9854 H- QJ3 D- 42 C- 962 West North East South - - P P 2D 2NT P 3S* P 4C P 4S All pass The Facts: 4S went down one, plus 100 for E/W At the table North announced that South's 3S bid was a transfer. The Director ruled that passing 4C was a LA for South (Law 16A2). The Director assigned Average Plus to E/W and Average Minus to N/S (Law 12C1). The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. E/W stated that they might have been able to defend 4C doubled. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that (1) North's 4C bid meant that North had long clubs and was not interested in a spade contract, and (2) that pass was a LA to South's 4S bid. The contract was changed to 4C down five, minus 500, for N/S (Law 12C2). E/W was assigned plus 100 or Average Plus, whichever was greater, because the Committee did not believe that E/W was entitled to the windfall result of plus 500. Committee: Harvy Brody (chair), Lowell Andrews (scribe), Phil Brady, Abby Heitner, Judy Randel -------------------------------------------------------------------- The panelists had fun with this one, as can be imagined, mostly along the lines that of course E/W should get +500 if N/S get -500. Some thought 4S should stand (4C a cue bid in support of spades). Needless to say, the BOB agreed with the AC decision. My comments: Why are ACBL TDs continuing to adjust illegally with artificial scores when assigned scores can be determined? Haven't they been told not to do this? Why is there no mention by anyone that spade-to-club transfers are Alerted, not Announced? Yes, unimportant here. How could E/W think they could get to play 4C doubled after East passed 4C? 5C maybe, but not 4C. Talk about greed! I thought the practice of assigning a "mixed score" (assigned/artificial) was extinct, as it should be. Evidently ACs still think this is legal. The option should be removed from the ACBLScor program, since its existence implies legality. Maybe, just maybe (I don't think so), under L12C3, but certainly not in the absence of L12C3. And certainly not in this case. Why would an AC think it has the power to rewrite L12C2 when assigning a score to the non-offending pair? Isn't "Follow the Laws" the first instruction given to AC members? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 12:04:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:04:45 +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 MAA11346 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:04:38 +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 TAA15568; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <052f01beb79c$58af0980$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bruce Moore" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 18:55:40 -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 Bruce J. Moore wrote: > > : When Mr. Oakie, speaking officially for the ACBL, writes, "Expert players > : and the large majority of experienced club and tournament players seldom or > : never make a psychic bid," is it any wonder that we have come to regard > : psychs by our opponents as "unexpected"? > > Mr. Oakie, long gone of course, was never an official spokesman for the ACBL, even when he was ACBL President. The only official ACBL regulations come from the Board of Directors and National Laws Commission. Don Oakie's statements, while authoritative-sounding, were merely personal opinions. *The Bridge Bulletin* editor picked them up and published them, they were put into official-looking documents, they were adopted by ACBL TDs, but they were not "official." IMO. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 12:12:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:12:07 +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 MAA11395 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:12:01 +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 TAA17362 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <053801beb79d$63a29360$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:09:53 -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: > rbeye@worldnet.att.net writes: > > > INCORRECT! I know of no ACBL policy that is in opposition to the Laws. I > > suggest that Eric preface statements such as the one made above with 'In My > > Very Humble Opinion.' I hope Bruce will take the time to read Law 40. > > > Kojak here. Bravo, Richard!! Adding the "V" to the "H" seems most > appropriate to this posting. > Common sense here. The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 12:34:31 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA11527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:34:31 +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 MAA11519 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:34:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-158-201.lsan.grid.net [207.205.158.201]) by smtp3.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08036 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 22:33:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37670DE5.6531B94E@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 19:37:25 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" 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: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 11 References: <041101beb799$56639a40$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: > > >From the *Looped in Chicago* casebook: > > Daylight Open Pairs, 30 Jul 98 > Board 18 > Dealer East > Vul: N/S > > S- A1076 > H- K1092 > D- AK7 > C- K3 > > S- KJ S- 32 > H- 64 H- A875 > D- Q109853 D- J6 > C- J104 C- AQ875 > > S- Q9854 > H- QJ3 > D- 42 > C- 962 > > West North East South > - - P P > 2D 2NT P 3S* > P 4C P 4S > All pass > > The Facts: 4S went down one, plus 100 for E/W At the table North announced > that South's 3S bid was a transfer. The Director ruled that passing 4C was a > LA for South (Law 16A2). The Director assigned Average Plus to E/W and > Average Minus to N/S (Law 12C1). > > The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to > attend the hearing. E/W stated that they might have been able to defend 4C > doubled. > > The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that (1) North's 4C bid meant > that North had long clubs and was not interested in a spade contract, and > (2) that pass was a LA to South's 4S bid. The contract was changed to 4C > down five, minus 500, for N/S (Law 12C2). E/W was assigned plus 100 or > Average Plus, whichever was greater, because the Committee did not believe > that E/W was entitled to the windfall result of plus 500. > > Committee: Harvy Brody (chair), Lowell Andrews (scribe), Phil Brady, Abby > Heitner, Judy Randel > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > The panelists had fun with this one, as can be imagined, mostly along the > lines that of course E/W should get +500 if N/S get -500. Some thought 4S > should stand (4C a cue bid in support of spades). Needless to say, the BOB > agreed with the AC decision. I agree that 4S should stand. Surely 4C is a cue-bid. Long clubs? Bah; that would rebid 3N. I'm a shooter on both MI and UI by nature, but I disagree that there should be an adjustment. I agree with the obvious, that E/W should get +500, given the factual ruling made. I *still* don't understand why you get a "windfall" if the opponents behave ethically, and nothing if they don't. This sort of adjusting will lead to a total lack of appeals. Maybe that's the goal. > > My comments: > > Why are ACBL TDs continuing to adjust illegally with artificial scores when > assigned scores can be determined? Haven't they been told not to do this? No. In the GNTs, the opponents were -100 on a clear UI auction; it wasn't clear whether they would go for -300 or -1400 if they didn't take advantage, though in my opinion -300 was far more likely. Instead, we got -100 protected to a minimum of +3. Weird. [snip] > Why would an AC think it has the power to rewrite L12C2 when assigning a > score to the non-offending pair? Isn't "Follow the Laws" the first > instruction given to AC members? One would think so. I agree with Marv, and with the fervor in which he makes this particular case. --JRM > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 13:13:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:13:23 +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 NAA11790 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:13:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-242-215.s469.tnt10.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.242.215]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA06858 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006a01beb7a5$ed6d4240$d7f2a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridgelaws" References: <199906151951.OAA04907@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:11:20 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Bridgelaws Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 1999 3:51 PM Subject: Re: Concession after revoke [snip] > > Just out of curiousity, take another case: > OK, I'll bite. > North irrelevant. West has AKT of spades. East has J spades, and > 52 is diamonds. South has 63 in diamonds, and the 2 of spades. It is > clear from the bidding and the play that West has three high spades. East > has previously revoked _in spades_. South concedes the remaining tricks, > not realizing his diamond 6 is high. How do you rule? South loses all of the tricks. 1 trick revoke penalty, assuming that is sufficient to restore "equity". > It seems to me that _you_ must rule that South plays a _spade_ and > not a diamond, and to give South the benefit of the doubt on the > infraction West must play low on the spade letting East win the trick, > triggering the two-trick penalty. East, of course, now leads a low > diamond, and South takes the last two tricks as well. So by conceding > South has not only taken two of the three tricks after the concession, but > has triggered a two-trick penalty as well! Is this what L12A1 tells us to > do? > Suppose on the trick before this, South has another winner in his > hand in a suit in which East is void. He now claims one trick [still > forgetting the diamond]. Do we have to forbid East from discarding his > worthless J spades as well? > > > -Grant Sterling > cfgcs@eiu.edu > Note that I firmly believe in the 2 trick penalty on the previous case. Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to identify the critical differences between your case and the previous one that result in a far different ruling (at least from me). Do you really think this example is analogous to the previous one? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 14:24:04 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:24:04 +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 OAA12373 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:23:55 +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 XAA30139 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:23:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0WU3V03V Tue, 15 Jun 99 23:22:26 Message-ID: <9906152322.0WU3V03@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 99 23:22:26 Subject: UNAUTHORI To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au () Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk the partnership understanding was that 2H was natural and this fact was knowingly concealed from the opponents. 40B says you can't bid based on a CPU. evidence indicates North's pass was based on a CPU. Opponents can not be expected to think that 2H is natural when they are told it is transfer. Others seem to feel that north's action was ok. I was merely pointing out that it appeared that pass was based on CPU so that if it made a difference in their analysis of the case they could consider it. Roger Pewick >r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org a Tcrit : >> North has information that he has incorrectly alerted/explained >partner's > call and he has concealed that fact from the opponents. >Based on AI 3H is a > game invitation in spades and not a suggestion to >play hearts unless partner > has at least 3 hearts and less than 3 >spades. Given North's major suit > holdings, it is evident that his >pass was based on a concealed > understanding. >Due to your absence of conclusion, I fail to understand where you wish >to go. >What is an infraction is Concealed Partnership Understanding (CPU), and >here you >speak of CU. As I understand alert procedure Partnership understandings >are public and must be disclosed and other Understandings are private. I >can see problems with MI to EW but no problem with North's bidding. When >he only acts with AI, he may misbid or choose to bid in a direction >different to the one suggested by AI. >JP Rocafort >> >> >> Roger Pewick >> >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: >> >To: >> >Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 11:47 PM >> >Subject: Unauthorized information -- Objectivity >> >> >> I sat east for this hand. Please comment >> >> >> >> S K654 >> >> H 2 >> >> D AQ52 >> >> C AT64 >> >> S AQJT8 S 93 >> >> H 74 H AQJ >> >> D J76 D K983 >> >> C 532 C KQJ3 >> >> S 72 >> >> H KT98653 >> >> D T4 >> >> C 97 >> >> >> >> The auction was; >> >> W N E S >> >> Pass 1D 1NT 2H* >> >> Pass 2S Pass 3H >> >> Pass Pass Pass >> >> >> >> 2H was alerted as a transfer. >> >> >> >> 3H was not accompanied by any clear body language or mannerism from >> >which one >> >> could suggest that north received direct UI that the 2H call was >> >natural, > rather than as alerted. >> >> >> >> Over north's pass I called the director and requested protection >> >against a > possible irregularity. After he arrived and the >situation > >was explained, I >> >> passed and when dummy was presented, I suggested that the dummy had >a > >> dramatic preference for spades yet had passed. No further >explanation > >of > the two heart bid was offered prior to the >conclusion of the > >bidding. >> >> >> >> The result was down 1, on the lead of a diamond and a club shift. >> >> >> >> It would appear from the discussion that 2H was NOT a transfer. >Let > >that be >> >> the factual basis for this case. North was mistaken in his >> >announcement. >> >> -s- >> Roger Pewick >> Houston, Texas >> r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org >> ___ >> *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader >-- >___________________________________________________ >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 >___________________________________________________ > Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 14:58:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA12531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:58:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12526 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:58:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.21]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990616045804.ENZN311284.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:58:04 +1200 Message-ID: <37672DE3.9B06312@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:53:55 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Group Subject: Re: Advice from on high. References: <3.0.1.32.19990615092551.00710090@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990615134751.0070ed18@pop.cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 09:35 AM 6/15/99 -0500, Richard wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Eric Landau > > > >> At 12:10 AM 6/15/99 -0400, Bruce wrote: > >> > Anyone who doubts this need only try > playing 10-12 1NT openings in ACBL competition, opening 1NT on, say, > K109/QJ109/Q109/J109, and seeing what happens next. I see your example is a maximum. Legal everywhere!!! Not a convention, it is an offer to play in 1NT and not made on a hand with a King or more below opening strength so therefore *not* subject to regulation L40D. It even has a Jack too much and those 109's must compensate for something. Why not 8-11 1NT? > > 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 Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 15:33:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA12712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:33:24 +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 PAA12707 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:33:17 +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, 16 Jun 1999 01:31:42 -0400 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19fc043e.2497d57e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 01:23:43 -0400 To: Schoderb@aol.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: establishment Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:12 PM -0400 6/15/99, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >Kojak here. I apologize for my poor use of English. I mean that according to >Law 62A and Law 9B2 we have come to a stop in the play. Reading all the >MUSTS and SHALLS involved, and the sequential violations occurring, the >revoke IS NOT established, nor can it become established by any action of any >of the players. [snip] Okay. I was gonna stay out of this until some consensus was reached, but ... Law 63 says "any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke". I can't see any way around that. Perhaps if someone could give an example of an illegal play that does _not_ fall afoul of the interpretation above... >What is of great interest to me is what happens now. BLML has gone through >long and torturous postings, flip flops, opinions, etc. And apparently has >arrived at an impasse over what is the proper action for the TD to take. >Do we now go along our individual ways, or can there be an agreed path to >follow until further official word comes from the WBFLC? And where does this >leave the provision of Law 81C5, and the many TDs and ACs on this mortal coil? Good questions. I dunno the answers. :-) 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/AwUBN2c3Er2UW3au93vOEQJk2wCeM2uBTxnPJVsDRdgp6VKOPUeTz2EAoMw2 OiNlBJkusii0WJvY2cZpPGnD =UJBH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 17:52:20 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA12868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:52:20 +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 RAA12863 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 17:52:13 +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 AAA06708 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002a01beb7cd$1b8c22a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <052f01beb79c$58af0980$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:48:47 -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 Marvin L. French wrote (and reconsiders): > > > Mr. Oakie, long gone of course, was never an official spokesman for > the ACBL, even when he was ACBL President. The only official ACBL > regulations come from the Board of Directors and National Laws > Commission. Don Oakie's statements, while authoritative-sounding, > were merely personal opinions. *The Bridge Bulletin* editor picked > them up and published them, they were put into official-looking > documents, they were adopted by ACBL TDs, but they were not > "official." > Well, the Encyclopedia does indeed say that Don Oakie's input to *The Bridge Bulletin* in 1978 was at the request of the BoD, who commissioned him to explain "the League's position." I still regard that as an informal personal interpretation, not as current ACBL policy, which is stated in the Tech Files of ACBLScor and in *Duplicate Decisions*, the guide for club directors. Ed Repper wrote: > Okay, I'll bite. What _is_ the current official ACBL policy towards psyches? And where is it stated? Everyone knows the rules forbidding the psyching of "artificial or conventional opening bids and /or conventional responses thereto," and conventional suit responses of 2S or lower in response to natural opening bids. That's on the ACBL Convention Charts, under DISALLOWED. The "official" ACBL stand on psychs that we seem to be discussing dates back to the BoD minutes, Spring 1974, in which regulations against "excessive, frivolous, or unsportsmanlike use of psychic bidding...may make the offenders subject to penalty. Excessive: "When three or more psychic initial actions by a pair in any one session come to the attention of the TD," he/she "should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place." Frivolous: Psychs "apparently inspired of malicious mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous." Unsportsmanlike: "A psychic action apparently designed to give the opponents an abnormal opportunity for a good score; or unnatural or atypical psychics against pairs or teams in contention, may be classed as unsportsmanlike psychics. When a player takes an action that appears to be based on an accurate "hunch" that his partner's earlier call was psychic, although that psychic was not clearly exposed by the opponents' calls...then the Tournament Director and committee should consider such action to be presumptive evidence of an improper partnership understanding (even if implicit). Unless this presumption is refuted by the psyching partnership, a matchpoint penalty should be assessed. Repeated infractions may lead to disciplinary actions." (Board of Directors - Spring 1974) As far as I can tell, Oakie's words in *The Bridge Bulletin* were an attempt to interpret this BoD policy, but he seems to have gone far beyond what the policy states. Are his words currently in effect officially? I don't know, but I don't think so. They don't seem to be published in any current medium used for promulgating ACBL regulations. The Tech files go on to say something strange: If a psych becomes so frequent as to form a partnership understanding that is Alerted, "then the bid can no longer even remotely be considered a psych...Actually the bid has become a conventional agreement...governed by [the convention charts]." (Directions - Jul/Oct 1992). Hadn't heard that before. I believe "Directions" are the semi-monthly memos sent to ACBL TDs (and published nowhere, except for a few excerpts in the Tech Files). Office Policy of August 1995 prohibits risk-free psychs, in a long Tech File statement that I won't quote. The gist is that if a partner is barred from bidding (or raising) by system (e.g., a weak two bidder who may not bid again, or who may not raise a suit response), that constitutes a psychic control (outlawed by the BoD in 1992). This interpretation of "psychic control" is not in any way derivable from the original BoD language used to bar the practice, which was: "Psychic controls (bids designed to determine whether partner has ps yched or to clarify the nature of the psych) are not allowed." However, the current Convention Charts, which also come from the BoD, say that psychic controls include "ANY partnership agreement, which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance for that psych." That seems to be a restatement of the Office Policy barring risk-free psychs. Does that mean bluff Blackwood is illegal? I suppose they will bar risk-free falsecards next. Anyone looking for an illegal ACBL regulation might well concentrate on this one. *Duplicate Decisions repeats the "Excessive, Frivolous, Unsportsmanlike" regulation shown above, but makes no mention of either Oakie's words or the "Office Policy" banning risk-free psychs. It adds language that exempts tactical bids, waiting bids, and occasional minor strength deviations from the usual TD actions in re psychs. All in all, the language in *Duplicate Decisions* seems quite reasonable. That's about it. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 19:20:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:20:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13005 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:20:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from LOCALNAME ([202.27.177.34]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with SMTP id <19990616092249.GRMS311284.mta2-rme@LOCALNAME>; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:22:49 +1200 Message-ID: <376877A8.7252@xtra.co.nz> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:20:56 -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, Ed Reppert Subject: Book on movements References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > Speaking of movements, ISTR a (600 page?) book on same by some Scandinavian > folks, translated into English by (I think) Barry Rigal, recently appeared > in the Baron-Barclay catalog. Anyone know if that's worth getting? :-) > Books is called "Movements a fair approach" by Hallen, Hanner Jannersten and trans by Rigal. Long but lots of options for director to use with explanations of why and how it works. Mildly expensive but good addition to library of person interested in movements. Bruce From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 21:31:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:31:10 +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 VAA13109 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:30:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10uDI5-0002FA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:51:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 17:22:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: What is the lead penalty? References: <19990615152946.90564.qmail@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <19990615152946.90564.qmail@hotmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >David Stevenson: >>When an action is withdrawn, L26 applies to Lead Penalties. What about a >>2-suited bid? If the two suits are fully specified >[as in a Michaels 2C >>showing spades and hearts] then L26A applies, >and both suits can be >>required or forbidden unless they were shown >elsewhere in the auction. If >>the two suits are not fully specified >[as in a Michaels 2H showing spades >>and a minor] then L26B applies, >and any one suit can be forbidden. >> >> Suppose we have a Michaels 2C bid, and later in the auction, the >>player who withdrew it shows hearts: what then? According to L26A1, >>there is no penalty as far as hearts are concerned, but L26A2 still >>applies to spades, which may be required or forbidden. >> >Ok, this is easy to follow, and makes sense. Now, I'm only confused about >the other situation. What if we have a Michaels 2H (spades and a minor), >and then later in the auction, the player who withdrew the bid shows >diamonds? Are both suits now fully specified (so L26A2 applies to spades) >or are we still in L26B (any one suit)? We are still in L26B. L26A says: "If the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits, ....". Either it did, or not: later specification does not affect 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 Wed Jun 16 21:34:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA13129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:34:07 +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 VAA13124 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:33:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:30:00 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990616122959.007f4ac0@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, 16 Jun 1999 12:29:59 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <376877A8.7252@xtra.co.nz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 21:20 16.06.99 -0700, B A Small wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> Speaking of movements, ISTR a (600 page?) book on same by some Scandinavian >> folks, translated into English by (I think) Barry Rigal, recently appeared >> in the Baron-Barclay catalog. Anyone know if that's worth getting? :-) >> >Books is called "Movements a fair approach" by Hallen, Hanner Jannersten >and trans by Rigal. Long but lots of options for director to use with >explanations of why and how it works. Mildly expensive but good addition >to library of person interested in movements. Good >>>addition<<>>every<<< problem which is thinkable. Individual Movements Team Movements (including an approach to play matches between clubs/cities) and of course Pairs (every movement you can think of) And a bunch of good tips how to handle a) late pairs b) pairs which go earlier c) ever forgot the skip in a mitchell? here is a really easy way to handle the mess. (just skip the boards not the players) It starts at the beginning (3 table pairs) and has all in it you can ever think of. Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 22:20:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:20:50 +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 WAA13286 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:20:40 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (7809) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id sUNFa05537; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5f6bc68c.2498f02f@aol.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:18:55 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: mfrench1@san.rr.com, Bruce.Moore@akamail.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 6/15/99 10:07:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > Mr. Oakie, long gone of course, was never an official spokesman for > the ACBL, even when he was ACBL President. The only official ACBL > regulations come from the Board of Directors and National Laws > Commission. Don Oakie's statements, while authoritative-sounding, > were merely personal opinions. *The Bridge Bulletin* editor picked > them up and published them, they were put into official-looking > documents, they were adopted by ACBL TDs, but they were not > "official." > > IMO. Kojak here. Right on!!!! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 22:23:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:23:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13316 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:23:08 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (7809) by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id sEUVa11696; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:21:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:21:45 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: mfrench1@san.rr.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 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 22:48:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:48:37 +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 WAA13355 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:48:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA23421 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:48:20 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a > > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. > Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F > But this interpretation assumes that a 3-card major suit opening bid is a convention. The definitions say otherwise. The way round this is to ammend the definition of a conventional opening bid to include the notion that opening a 3-card suit is a convention. Then make opening a 3-card minor an allowable convention. -- Richard Lighton | Oh, is the American highway dull. As a Briton (lighton@idt.net)| you really cannot imagine boredom on this scale Wood-Ridge NJ |(unless, perhaps, you are from Stevenage). USA | -- Bill Bryson From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 16 22:55:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA13378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:55:29 +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 WAA13373 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:55:19 +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 JAA12210 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:08:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990616085607.0071b524@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:56:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <052f01beb79c$58af0980$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:55 PM 6/15/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Mr. Oakie, long gone of course, was never an official spokesman for >the ACBL, even when he was ACBL President. The only official ACBL >regulations come from the Board of Directors and National Laws >Commission. Don Oakie's statements, while authoritative-sounding, >were merely personal opinions. *The Bridge Bulletin* editor picked >them up and published them, they were put into official-looking >documents, they were adopted by ACBL TDs, but they were not >"official." In the wake of the controversy that followed the publication of the article, some at the ACBL tried to distance themselves from Mr. Oakie, claiming that he was merely expounding his personal opinion, not the official policy of the BoD. But that was, and is, pure revisionism. Mr. Oakie was the past president, a member of the BoD, writing in the League's official publication, and there was no disclaimer of any kind. Legally, that makes his writing official (had he, for example, committed libel in the article, the ACBL could have been held liable). Besides, not even the ACBL continues to claim that the article was unofficial. Quite the contrary. The latest edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, published by the ACBL in 1994, says: "Don Oakie was commissioned by the ACBL Board of Directors to state the League's position in an article in the ACBL Bulletin. His article appeared in the February 1978 issue." That doesn't leave much room for the claim that the article represented nothing more than Mr. Oakie's personal opinions. So what Mr. Oakie wrote was certainly the official policy of the ACBL in 1978, and continued to be the official policy of the ACBL until at least 1994, when it was republished, explicitly labeled as official policy, in the Encyclopedia. And if the BoD has since repudiated Mr. Oakie's opinions, they have done so in secret. 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 Jun 16 23:22:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:22:14 +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 XAA13481 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:22:06 +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 JAA13695 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:35:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990616092257.00719a5c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:22:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <37672DE3.9B06312@xtra.co.nz> References: <3.0.1.32.19990615092551.00710090@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990615134751.0070ed18@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:53 PM 6/16/99 +1200, wayne wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> Anyone who doubts this need only try >> playing 10-12 1NT openings in ACBL competition, opening 1NT on, say, >> K109/QJ109/Q109/J109, and seeing what happens next. > >I see your example is a maximum. > >Legal everywhere!!! ...Except in North America. The ACBL has decreed it to be an infraction which is to be penalized automatically. >Not a convention, it is an offer to play in 1NT and not made on a hand >with a King or more below opening strength so therefore *not* subject to >regulation L40D. So says common sense. But the ACBL just doesn't see it that way. Wayne demonstrates that he does not normally play in ACBL competition by assuming that common sense and ACBL interpretations of the laws have anything to do with one another. >It even has a Jack too much and those 109's must compensate for >something. > >Why not 8-11 1NT? Not too long ago, the ACBL BoD voted to ban 1NT openings with a range that fell below 10 HCP outright, but their own Laws Commission told them that that would be blatantly illegal, so they backed off. But then they came right back, citing their L40D authority to regulate the use of conventions as they see fit, with a rule that said that if you use a 1NT opening with a minimum of fewer than 10 HCP you may not play any conventions whatsoever in the subsequent auction, which is where things stand today. This is a perfect example of how the ACBL "interprets" the letter of the law to do violence to its spirit and intent. 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 Jun 16 23:53:57 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA13559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:53:57 +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 XAA13554 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:53:46 +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 KAA15711 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:06:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990616095439.007201b8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:54:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <002a01beb7cd$1b8c22a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <052f01beb79c$58af0980$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:48 AM 6/16/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote (and reconsiders): > >> Mr. Oakie, long gone of course, was never an official spokesman >for >> the ACBL, even when he was ACBL President. The only official ACBL >> regulations come from the Board of Directors and National Laws >> Commission. Don Oakie's statements, while authoritative-sounding, >> were merely personal opinions. *The Bridge Bulletin* editor picked >> them up and published them, they were put into official-looking >> documents, they were adopted by ACBL TDs, but they were not >> "official." >> >Well, the Encyclopedia does indeed say that Don Oakie's input to >*The Bridge Bulletin* in 1978 was at the request of the BoD, who >commissioned him to explain "the League's position." > >I still regard that as an informal personal interpretation, not as >current ACBL policy, which is stated in the Tech Files of ACBLScor >and in *Duplicate Decisions*, the guide for club directors. ...Neither of which is available to the membership at large. Mr. Oakie's pronouncements are the most recent statement of the ACBL's official policy on psychs *to their players*, whatever they may be telling their club managers and directors. >Everyone knows the rules forbidding the psyching of "artificial or >conventional opening bids and /or conventional responses thereto," >and conventional suit responses of 2S or lower in response to >natural opening bids. That's on the ACBL Convention Charts, under >DISALLOWED. > >The "official" ACBL stand on psychs that we seem to be discussing >dates back to the BoD minutes, Spring 1974, in which regulations >against "excessive, frivolous, or unsportsmanlike use of psychic >bidding...may make the offenders subject to penalty. > >Excessive: "When three or more psychic initial actions by a pair in >any one session come to the attention of the TD," he/she "should >investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking >place." By 1978, this had become "a second psychic call by the same player during the same event, even in a radically different situation, is judged to establish a patter of psychic bidding that may well create an implicit partnership understanding". >Frivolous: Psychs "apparently inspired of malicious mischief or lack >of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous." > >Unsportsmanlike: "A psychic action apparently designed to give the >opponents an abnormal opportunity for a good score; or unnatural or >atypical psychics against pairs or teams in contention, may be >classed as unsportsmanlike psychics. When a player takes an action >that appears to be based on an accurate "hunch" that his partner's >earlier call was psychic, although that psychic was not clearly >exposed by the opponents' calls...then the Tournament Director and >committee should consider such action to be presumptive evidence of >an improper partnership understanding (even if implicit). Unless >this presumption is refuted by the psyching partnership, a >matchpoint penalty should be assessed. Repeated infractions may lead >to disciplinary actions." > >(Board of Directors - Spring 1974) The "meat" of Oakie's article is nothing less than a blueprint for TDs/ACs which explains how just about any psych whatsoever can be judged to fall into one of these three categories. >As far as I can tell, Oakie's words in *The Bridge Bulletin* were an >attempt to interpret this BoD policy, but he seems to have gone far >beyond what the policy states. Are his words currently in effect >officially? I don't know, but I don't think so. They don't seem to >be published in any current medium used for promulgating ACBL >regulations. The current (1994) edition of the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (which is published by the ACBL) states explicitly that they represent the official policy of the League. That's the most current statement on the subject that is available to ACBL members at large. >The Tech files go on to say something strange: If a psych becomes so >frequent as to form a partnership understanding that is Alerted, >"then the bid can no longer even remotely be considered a >psych...Actually the bid has become a conventional >agreement...governed by [the convention charts]." (Directions - >Jul/Oct 1992). > >Hadn't heard that before. I believe "Directions" are the >semi-monthly memos sent to ACBL TDs (and published nowhere, except >for a few excerpts in the Tech Files). > >Office Policy of August 1995 prohibits risk-free psychs, in a long >Tech File statement that I won't quote. The gist is that if a >partner is barred from bidding (or raising) by system (e.g., a weak >two bidder who may not bid again, or who may not raise a suit >response), that constitutes a psychic control (outlawed by the BoD >in 1992). This interpretation of "psychic control" is not in any way >derivable from the original BoD language used to bar the practice, >which was: > >"Psychic controls (bids designed to determine whether partner has ps >yched or to clarify the nature of the psych) are not allowed." > >However, the current Convention Charts, which also come from the >BoD, say that psychic controls include "ANY partnership agreement, >which, if used in conjunction with a psychic call, makes allowance >for that psych." That seems to be a restatement of the Office Policy >barring risk-free psychs. Does that mean bluff Blackwood is illegal? Yes. More significantly, it means that Drury, inverted minor raises, and a host of other common methods (including any preempt, if you have the almost universal understanding that a preempter is not expected to bid again) are illegal, since they would "if used in conjunction with a psychic call, make[] allowance for that psych". I don't imagine that that was their intent, but that is what the sentence quoted above says. I suspect they didn't really mean that "if". But without it, the statement would reduce to flatly prohibiting psychs by a pair playing any such method, which would be too blatant even for the ACBL. >I suppose they will bar risk-free falsecards next. Anyone looking >for an illegal ACBL regulation might well concentrate on this one. > >*Duplicate Decisions repeats the "Excessive, Frivolous, >Unsportsmanlike" regulation shown above, but makes no mention of >either Oakie's words or the "Office Policy" banning risk-free >psychs. It adds language that exempts tactical bids, waiting bids, >and occasional minor strength deviations from the usual TD actions >in re psychs. All in all, the language in *Duplicate Decisions* >seems quite reasonable. > >That's about it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 00:22:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:22:07 +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 AAA15848 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:21:58 +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 KAA17537 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990616102252.0071f400@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:22:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:48 AM 6/16/99 -0400, richard wrote: >On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > >> In a message dated 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >> mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: >> >> > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a >> > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. >> Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F >> >But this interpretation assumes that a 3-card major suit >opening bid is a convention. The definitions say otherwise. Not even the ACBL wants to go so far as to claim that a 3-card major opening is a convention. But they are claiming that a 3-card major opening that is expected to be "a precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit" is a convention. I happen to agree with them on this one, but Marv and others (writing in r.g.b) make a strong case for the other side. To reply to Marv by blindly citing L40D is to either miss the point entirely or to swallow completely the discredited notion that an SO can regulate anything it wants to by simply decreeing that the subject of the regulation is a convention. >The way round this is to ammend the definition of a conventional >opening bid to include the notion that opening a 3-card suit >is a convention. Then make opening a 3-card minor an allowable >convention. ...Which would take us right back to the bad old days when a "convention" was whatever the ACBL wanted to ban or regulate: limit raises, weak 2-bids, inverted minor raises, weak NTs, fragment bids, gambling 3NT, etc. etc. 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 Jun 17 00:40:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA15927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:40:50 +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 AAA15921 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:40:42 +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 JAA54216 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:40:35 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DJR300M Wed, 16 Jun 99 09:38:39 Message-ID: <9906160938.0DJR300@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 99 09:38:39 Subject: CHICAGO N To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quite interesting that a ruling could be made without a finding as to the agreement to 3S. With some partners after a NT OC, I use spades as a relay to clubs, at which point responder passes to play, bids diamonds to play, bids NT to invite or insist on game, or bids a different suit to show controls up the line with the values suggestive of a minor suit slam. So in this auction, if 3S is some kind of transfer, then 4S should be a slam investigation with control of spades, and because N has the ace south would be void in spades, and hence is forcing. [Such an auction would promise a North a hand like -Void- QJx- xx- AQJxxxxx.] I would imagine that if S gave no extraneous information that it would not be an infraction for N to [risk a] pass [obstensibly if he chose to believe that S misbid]. However, it seems that a small bit of EI will have been created along the way. If the agreement is 3S is to play, then 4C would [a] be a break of partnership confidence [an 'impossible' bid]. To a natural 3S bidder, 4C whether natural or not, would be forcing. As such, I can not find a logical alternative after an 'impossible' bid except 4S with the South hand. or [b] an extraordinary hand like a gambling NT type with say a stiff or void in spades; It seems that that scenario would necessitate discussion. If it had been discussed then passing 4C would be the normal thing to do. Roger Pewick B>"Marvin L. French" wrote: B>> B>> >From the *Looped in Chicago* casebook: B>> B>> Daylight Open Pairs, 30 Jul 98 B>> Board 18 B>> Dealer East B>> Vul: N/S B>> B>> S- A1076 B>> H- K1092 B>> D- AK7 B>> C- K3 B>> B>> S- KJ S- 32 B>> H- 64 H- A875 B>> D- Q109853 D- J6 B>> C- J104 C- AQ875 B>> B>> S- Q9854 B>> H- QJ3 B>> D- 42 B>> C- 962 B>> B>> West North East South B>> - - P P B>> 2D 2NT P 3S* B>> P 4C P 4S B>> All pass B>> B>> The Facts: 4S went down one, plus 100 for E/W At the table North B>announced > that South's 3S bid was a transfer. The Director ruled that B>passing 4C was a > LA for South (Law 16A2). The Director assigned B>Average Plus to E/W and > Average Minus to N/S (Law 12C1). B>> B>> The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only B>players to > attend the hearing. E/W stated that they might have been B>able to defend 4C > doubled. B>> B>> The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that (1) North's 4C bid B>meant > that North had long clubs and was not interested in a spade B>contract, and > (2) that pass was a LA to South's 4S bid. The contract B>was changed to 4C > down five, minus 500, for N/S (Law 12C2). E/W was B>assigned plus 100 or > Average Plus, whichever was greater, because the B>Committee did not believe > that E/W was entitled to the windfall result B>of plus 500. B>> B>> Committee: Harvy Brody (chair), Lowell Andrews (scribe), Phil Brady, B>Abby > Heitner, Judy Randel B>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- B>> The panelists had fun with this one, as can be imagined, mostly along B>the > lines that of course E/W should get +500 if N/S get -500. Some B>thought 4S > should stand (4C a cue bid in support of spades). Needless B>to say, the BOB > agreed with the AC decision. B>I agree that 4S should stand. Surely 4C is a cue-bid. Long clubs? Bah; B>that would rebid 3N. I'm a shooter on both MI and UI by nature, but I B>disagree that there should be an adjustment. B>I agree with the obvious, that E/W should get +500, given the factual B>ruling made. I *still* don't understand why you get a "windfall" if the B>opponents behave ethically, and nothing if they don't. This sort of B>adjusting will lead to a total lack of appeals. Maybe that's the goal. B>> B>> My comments: B>> B>> Why are ACBL TDs continuing to adjust illegally with artificial scores B>when > assigned scores can be determined? Haven't they been told not to B>do this? B>No. In the GNTs, the opponents were -100 on a clear UI auction; it B>wasn't clear whether they would go for -300 or -1400 if they didn't take B>advantage, though in my opinion -300 was far more likely. Instead, we B>got -100 protected to a minimum of +3. Weird. B>[snip] B>> Why would an AC think it has the power to rewrite L12C2 when assigning B>a > score to the non-offending pair? Isn't "Follow the Laws" the first B>> instruction given to AC members? B>One would think so. I agree with Marv, and with the fervor in which he B>makes this particular case. B>--JRM B>> B>> Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 01:33:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA16134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:33:57 +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 BAA16129 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 01:33:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10uHh1-000EFu-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 15:33:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:19:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990616122959.007f4ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.19990616122959.007f4ac0@mail.rz.uni- duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes >At 21:20 16.06.99 -0700, B A Small wrote: >>Ed Reppert wrote: >>> >>> Speaking of movements, ISTR a (600 page?) book on same by some Scandinavian >>> folks, translated into English by (I think) Barry Rigal, recently appeared >>> in the Baron-Barclay catalog. Anyone know if that's worth getting? :-) >>> >>Books is called "Movements a fair approach" by Hallen, Hanner Jannersten >>and trans by Rigal. Long but lots of options for director to use with >>explanations of why and how it works. Mildly expensive but good addition >>to library of person interested in movements. > >Good >>>addition<<Well. If you have this book you can solve >>>every<<< problem which is >thinkable. As long as you ignore the sections on arrow switching. Arrow switch one eighth of the boards in a Mitchell. Anything else is *wrong*. Excellent book otherwise. >Individual Movements >Team Movements (including an approach to play matches between clubs/cities) >and of course Pairs (every movement you can think of) > >And a bunch of good tips how to handle >a) late pairs >b) pairs which go earlier >c) ever forgot the skip in a mitchell? here is a really easy way to handle >the mess. (just skip the boards not the players) > >It starts at the beginning (3 table pairs) and has all in it you can ever >think of. > >Richard > -- 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 Jun 17 02:15:14 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 02:15:14 +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 CAA16363 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 02:15:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10uIKu-000Mm3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:14:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:22:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UNAUTHORI References: <9906151141.0GFM801@bbs.hal-pc.org> In-Reply-To: <9906151141.0GFM801@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger wrote: > >North has information that he has incorrectly alerted/explained partner's >call and he has concealed that fact from the opponents. Based on AI 3H is a >game invitation in spades and not a suggestion to play hearts unless partner >has at least 3 hearts and less than 3 spades. Given North's major suit >holdings, it is evident that his pass was based on a concealed >understanding. It is not evident to me. If I was playing with a partner who made a transfer in an unusual position, then repeats the suit of the transfer, I consider it a matter of "General Bridge Knowledge" that partner might have not intended it as a transfer for whatever reason. The number of such situations that I have seen here, on RGB and RGBO, on OKB and in F2FB, and in screening all the EBU's and WBU's appeal forms is sufficient to demonstrate to me that it is a normal part of bridge. However, while I do not consider it evident that the pass of 3H is based on a CPU rather than just a good guess, there is the question of a fielded misbid. England and Wales have a method for dealing with such things that seems to be unique. L75B says: "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)". Now we feel that this includes unintentional violations as well as intentional ones, so we look at possibility of fielding [1] misbids similarly to that of fielding psyches. They are assessed as Red, Amber or Green: Red means that the player has taken action that appears [2] to cater for partner having misbid based on a CPU: Amber is somewhat suspicious: Green means partner's actions are fine. There is no adjustment except for Red, when we give A+/A- unless the NOs have done better. [1] "Fielding" is used in the more common usage of making allowance illegally for partner not having his call. [2] "appears" because we do not accuse people of being unethical intentionally. On the actual hand, I can believe that the pass of 3H was Amber but not Red, so it would not affect my ruling. -- 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 Jun 17 02:20:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 02:20:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA16395 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 02:20:33 +1000 (EST) 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 SAA15306; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:19:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA21490; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:19:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:19:49 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > As long as you ignore the sections on arrow switching. Arrow switch one > eighth of the boards in a Mitchell. Anything else is *wrong*. Excellent > book otherwise. Why? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 02:41:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA16448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 02:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f86.hotmail.com [207.82.250.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA16443 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 02:41:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 97006 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 1999 16:41:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19990616164106.97005.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:41:05 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 09:41:05 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk First off, I wish to apologize in advance to all of the good, honest, hard-working lawyers on BLML for the abuse I am about to do to your professional name. I won't even make one of the standard jokes. >From: Schoderb@aol.com >In a message dated 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a > > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. >Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F Ok, I did - and one other besides. 40D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. [snip "king or below"].[snip "delegate"] Ok, so if this is a convention, the ACBL can regulate it. *If* it is a convention. 80F. Supplementary Regulations [A sponsoring organization has the power] to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. Fine by me. Convention (from the Definitions) 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. Ok, I can see how this is legal. *If* the bid conveys a meaning other than willingness to play (I guess "if strong, will have a longer suit" is a "meaning other"), then it is a convention, and it can be regulated. I don't believe that the spirit of the definition is to regulate quite that strongly, but it is within the letter of the Law. OTOH, my standard diamond opening (if 3 cards, will have 2 4-card majors, 15-19 points) is also a convention. Which leads me to the ACBL GCC. It states: Allowed: 1.ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points. Ok, I guess my 1D opener is an allowed convention. Definitions: 1.An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if for minors it shows 3 or more cards in that suit and for majors it shows 4 or more cards in that suit. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons). This seems to me (I'd use IMHO here, but I actually consider myself to be humble, and standard net.practice is for the reader to add the unspoken (NS) between M and H) to be in direct conflict with the Laws declaration of Convention. Maybe not, though - because maybe natural doesn't mean "not conventional". >From the "ACBL Convention Regulations" ( http://www.acbl.org/regulations/conv.htm ): Canape Systems The principle that pairs using canape must have at least a four-card major, or at least a three-card minor suit bid to start a canape sequence, is reaffirmed. I don't see anything illegal about that, either - provided you read the definition of Convention in the Laws loosely enough. Strangely enough, the definition of Convention in the ACBL Regulations also doesn't conflict with the definition of Convention in the Laws, if you read them loosely enough - and neither does their definition of Treatments. However, this might be in conflict with the GCC - what if I want to start a canape sequence with a 2-card minor? 1D can be anything, provided it's 10+ (Allowed, OB, 1); the rebid can be anything, provided it's constructive (Allowed, R&R, 7). And I remember that one of our sequences when I was playing Precision (from Reese's book) was that 1D-1M-2C was strong, and "guaranteed" longer clubs than diamonds. I wonder. So, Marvin, I think Kojak's right here. However, I think if you decide to play a system where you open 3-card majors - without a canape structure, you just want to be preemptive and open in the majors a lot - you will be in violation of the GCC, through completely non-Conventional means. I think I might have found a situation where L80F is broken (though I had to lawyer at least as badly as those I'm complaining about to do it). I also will bring up the (late, unlamented) Classic Bridge proposal, which definately was a reg in conflict with L80F (no appeals). But it's gone now. Now I go to wash out my mind. Michael. P.S. Can anyone send me the famous "limerick in response to Oakie's article" (I think it was by Kaplan, but my memory could be faulty)? I'd like to have a copy of it... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 03:02:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 03:02:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA16477 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 03:02:30 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (7996) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id iGNPa21481; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:58:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:57:53 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: mdfarebr@hotmail.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 6/16/99 12:44:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mdfarebr@hotmail.com writes: > Ok, so if this is a convention, the ACBL can regulate it. *If* it is a > convention. Kojak here. And that is exactly what I meant. The ACBL considers a call made to indicate that my length and strength are probably somewhere else as a convention, I believe. Having severed financial ties to the ACBL some time ago I may not have that exactly correct, but the Erics of BLML can find it somewhere written out, I'm sure. > OK........I don"t believe that the spirit of the definition is to regulate that strongly, but it is within the letter of the Law. I do think that it was in intent of the ACBL to regualte that strongly. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 03:14:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA16539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 03:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f200.hotmail.com [207.82.251.91]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA16533 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 03:14:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 40085 invoked by uid 0); 16 Jun 1999 17:13:53 -0000 Message-ID: <19990616171353.40084.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:13:52 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:13:52 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > One problem is that I have difficulty writing unless someone gives >mea problem or situation: then I can always write about the answer. So what >I am doing here is asking you: what sort of articles do you >think would be useful for a special section designed to help TDs with >their basic approach, and suitable throughout the world? > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ This is going to sound like a stupid suggestion, which is why I've thought about it for a few days before responding, but... How about a section on RTFLB? Ok, now that you've stopped laughing, I mean it. Talk about why you should (fairness, being seen to be fair, getting the wording and the rulings exactly right - mention the one a couple of months ago where the CTD of the WBU had to look up an ostensibly "simple" sequence in order to get it right :-). Talk about how to RTFLB (what is the purpose of the Laws, how to interpret the Laws, what the (Scope, Definitions, Headings) mean and how to use them; how to mark up the FLB so that the TD can find what e's looking for with a minimum of fuss (I'm waiting for this one). Compile a list of supplementary (L80F) materials for different parts of the world, or at least how to find them (solicit information for this one). Include a link to the latest release of the WBFLC interpretations. Add a list of "common gotchas" - places where you should look to another reference that is either not listed or made in more passing than it should, places where the appropriate rule is in a non-obvious location. Make suggestions on how to rule in such a manner as to minimize the "I've had the cops called on me" feeling. Make suggestions on how to explain to the game that the director is a referee rather than a Peeler (do they still use that expression in UK? I get it from books). Frankly all of this sounds obvious, and should already be in the hands of novice TDs (and not-so-novice TDs); but I can assure you I will wait eagerly for this article, sure in the knowledge I'll learn somthing obvious, and I've been directing and a member of BLML for 5 years. I sure as *$%# know that most TDs around here could learn something, because the chance of seeing a FLB, never mind having a ruling read from it, in a year of playing bridge in southern Ontario is fairly low (except when I'm directing *). Most novice TDs are likely to attempt to emulate what they saw when they were playing, and that's what they'll see, at least here. Michael *) Apologies to Mike Nadler and Joe Siegel, if at their clubs, the FLB makes an appearance. I have never had the fortune (literally - just recently ex-starving student) of playing there. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 04:40:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA16978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 04:40:11 +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 EAA16973 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 04:40:03 +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 AA051558388; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:39:48 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA209098387; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:39:47 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:39:36 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Pass with the wrong hand Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Laval_DuBreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id EAA16974 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Recently in my club, I was called after all players had P on a board and spread thier cards faced up searching which side had more points. They then realised that one of them (3rd seat) had the wrong cards (from the board they just played before). Law 17D (Cards from wrong board) can evidently not be used to "saved the board" and "Normal Play of the Board is Impossible" as stated in Law 12A2. What is the best decision? Use Law 12 and allow an artificial score (A- to the pair who had the wrong cards and A+ to the other) ? Let the "All Pass" stand ? Using what Law ? In this hand, the "All Pass" gives less then an A- to the offenders. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 05:55:26 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA17131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:55:26 +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 FAA17126 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 05:55:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id OAA00028; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:53:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from irv-ca62-45.ix.netcom.com(199.35.101.237) by dfw-ix4.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029240; Wed Jun 16 14:50:50 1999 Message-ID: <3767FF2A.722FE032@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:46:50 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix9.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com CC: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: I welcome the changes being made at the National level, but am sorry that Mr. Brissman continues to try to excuse away the Vancouver Appeal by passing the buck. If the AC was wrongly instructed as to the Law --- where were the AC highly qualified members who knew the correct interpretation of the Law in getting it right?d out? Wasn't this an AC of a National Event? Didn't we have ACs for these Events because of their importance and the need for highly skilled and informed committee members? Come on, guys, when you drop the ball in right field, everyone sees the error -- (of course you can always say the lights or sun were in your eyes) ---when you make this kind of mistake, 'fess up and take your medicine. ------ Jeez, Kojak. A nice intellectual discussion was progressing, then you felt the need to inject personality and aspersion. Can't we keep the exchange of ideas impersonal? Regarding Vancouver Case 5, some observations and rebuttals: 1. The TDs who first ruled did so, IMO, in error. Had they ruled that the card could not be retracted, likely no one would have appealed (for fear of an Appeal Without Merit Point). 2. The TD screener told the AC that "pause for thought" meant "change of mind," which is a wrong instruction on the law. Part of the length of the deliberation on the case was due to frustration with the TD's instruction of the law. 3. An AC may not overrule a TD on a matter of law. It may argue with the TD to try to get him to change his interpretation (as did the panel in Vancouver Case 5), but in the end the TD makes the decision if the ruling is strictly application of the laws. 4. Some policy and procedure changes (internal and confidential) have been made or will soon be implemented at the NABC AC due to this case. 5. My view is that the wrong result obtained on this case due to breakdowns at three levels: the TDs responsible for the floor ruling, the TD screener, and the AC. Although I do not agree with the AC decision, I recognize that two other levels had to err for the case to be presented to the AC. I do not exonerate the AC, but I regret that it is the body that has received the bulk of the criticism. Sure, I'm protective of the NABC AC. That's part of my job. Jon C. Brissman NABC AC Chair From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 06:21:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:21:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17201 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:21:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.148.30]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990616202315.JYBM311284.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz>; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:23:15 +1200 Message-ID: <376806B7.D0B4885B@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:19:03 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Schoderb@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Advice from on high. 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 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a > > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. > Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F L40D relates to conventions and light openings only. I don't see how 1H which shows length ("3 cards or more") and may (or will) have a longer suit is any more conventional than 1H which shows 5+ hearts and will be my longest suit. Both methods provide information about heart length and both provide some additional information about the length of hearts relative to other suits. If it is not a convention it is not subject to regulation otherwise there is no point in L40D. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 06:25:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:25:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17219 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:24:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.148.30]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990616202656.JYYJ311284.mta2-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:26:56 +1200 Message-ID: <37680794.7ED60E90@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:22:44 +1200 From: wayne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk richard lighton wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > > > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a > > > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. > > Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F > > > But this interpretation assumes that a 3-card major suit > opening bid is a convention. The definitions say otherwise. > > The way round this is to ammend the definition of a conventional > opening bid to include the notion that opening a 3-card suit > is a convention. Then make opening a 3-card minor an allowable > convention. > -- > Richard Lighton | Oh, is the American highway dull. As a Briton > (lighton@idt.net)| you really cannot imagine boredom on this scale > Wood-Ridge NJ |(unless, perhaps, you are from Stevenage). > USA | -- Bill Bryson Why do you want a way around this? If this is a good method then we will be able to improve our own game and if it is a bad method then we will improve our own scores by beating those that play this inferior method. Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 06:58:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA17349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:58:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA17340 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:57:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from idt.net (ppp-15.ts-4.lax.idt.net [169.132.153.159]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA01492; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:57:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37680E8E.A3D01809@idt.net> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 13:52:30 -0700 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Advice from on high. References: <376806B7.D0B4885B@xtra.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe Wayne has made a very sensible presentation of what seems like perfectly obvious logic to me. After nearly 40 years of playing bridge in the US, I still don't understand why the ACBL feels the need to protect us in this manner. Is change really all that frightening? Do all the bigwigs in the ACBL still drive Model T Fords? Irv wayne wrote: > > Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > > In a message dated 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > > > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a > > > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. > > Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F > > L40D relates to conventions and light openings only. > > I don't see how 1H which shows length ("3 cards or more") and may (or > will) have a longer suit is any more conventional than 1H which shows 5+ > hearts and will be my longest suit. Both methods provide information > about heart length and both provide some additional information about > the length of hearts relative to other suits. > > If it is not a convention it is not subject to regulation otherwise > there is no point in L40D. > > Wayne From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 07:35:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA17536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 07:35:22 +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 HAA17531 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 07:35:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id QAA23212 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:35:55 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906162135.QAA23212@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Concession after revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:35:55 -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 > >> That is not the point. If he had played the hand out he might have > >> got two tricks, he might have got one. If he had picked a card at > >> random, and said "I am conceding, playing this card" then he might have > >> got two tricks, he might have got one. You are giving him one trick > >> because his action is based on his opponent's infraction. > > > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bombshell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Hey guys, when we make this concession do we know that the opponents > have 1S and 3C between them? > > So do we know that they *can't* have revoked in clubs? > > And do we know that they *could* have revoked in spades? > > So, obviously () we are exiting a spade to cater for this? > > Wouldn't it be irrational not to? 1) The conceder could have made this moot by simply saying "I'll play a spade and concede the rest" if he saw this, but... 2) If the conceder, at the table and without extensive "pause for thought", convinces me that he had evidence to prove that he could only get tricks from an unrevealed revoke and the revoke could only come in spades, I will give him the two-trick bonus. {I don't have my lawbook handy--L71C?} > Cheers John > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 -Grant Sterling, software challenged. :) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 09:05:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:05:43 +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 JAA17678 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:05:23 +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 TAA28776 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA05412 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:04:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:04:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906162304.TAA05412@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -------- From: "Jon C. Brissman" 5. My view is that the wrong result obtained on this case due to breakdowns at three levels: the TDs responsible for the floor ruling, the TD screener, and the AC. Although I do not agree with the AC decision, I recognize that two other levels had to err for the case to be presented to the AC. I do not exonerate the AC, but I regret that it is the body that has received the bulk of the criticism. --------- Thanks for the valuable comments, and of course I agree that a wrong interpretation of the laws was the fundamental problem. Could you please clarify where you believe the AC went wrong, given the reading of the laws that was imposed on them? Also, are you able to comment on future procedures for ensuring that AC's have good advice on what the laws say? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 09:26:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:26:59 +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 JAA17712 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:26:47 +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 TAA29016 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA05436 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:26:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:26:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906162326.TAA05436@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: establishment X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson Thanks for the lengthy analysis. I'm asking about a side issue. > Around this time, John through another point into the argument. He > quoted a case where a player made an inadvertent call, and tried to > change it under L25A: [I hope we all remember the rest of the story: partner calls after the attempt to change but before the change is completed.] > Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his > intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or > attempts to do so, without pause for thought. > I think this case is simpler: there is no Law that seems to stop him > changing it so the Law allows it to be changed despite his partner... I am surprised to see David read L25A this way, although I might have considered doing so. Once partner has called, the first six words no longer apply, so in "my" usual reading, the law is null and we look around for another law. In "David's" usual reading, 'until' means 'until but not after'. I guess David's reading depends on reading the prepositional phrase 'until ...' as modifying 'does so, or attempts' and not 'substitute'. This seems to me an awkward reading, and following "David's" style of interpretation, I would have said that one of the conditions for substitution is that partner has not called. I would reach the same conclusion in "my" style of interpretation. L25A doesn't apply, and there is no other law allowing a change, so no change is possible. My list of conditions for changing an action under L25A or 45C4b (sent May 25) was: 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. In John's case, 1, 2, and 3 are satisfied, but sadly 4 is not. Unless, of course, you adopt (Grattan and Kojak's???) position that an illegal call (L9B2) is not "made." Do we need to modify number 4? How about the rest? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 09:40:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:40:40 +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 JAA17737 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:40:25 +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 TAA29177 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA05463 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:40:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:40:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906162340.TAA05463@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > Kojak here. One of the many necessary steps to solve these problems is to do > away with the attitude that the AC and the TD are in an adversarial > relationship. I trust we all agree with this. > An Appeals Committee's purpose, in my opinion, is to review the > facts, hear the Laws applied thereto, and decide if the TD did the right > thing... But doesn't this language suggest the very adversarial relationship we wish to avoid. As John Probst's message suggested, the AC can very well overrule a TD, and both can still be right. Maybe somebody can help me out with the right phrasing here, but what about something like "...decide whether there were aspects of the case that the TD had no opportunity to investigate and consider bridge judgments at greater length and with more diverse viewpoints than the TD could have applied?" > Sometimes, while doing > this, an AC will obtain more complete facts than the TD was able to get, and > may well decide to come to a different conclusion. This is a very slippery > and dangerous sort of thing. Remember the players usually had some number of > hours to consult professionals, experts, each other, and the stories don't > always resemble what was elicited at the table. Yes, all AC members should be very conscious of this. Of course it's up to the floor TD to determine the objective facts in the first place, but _once he has done a good job of that_ (not, alas, something to be assumed in the ACBL), AC's should be _extremely_ reluctant to decide in conflict with those facts. At least the authorities are beginning recognize that there are problems. That is the first step towards fixing them. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 09:49:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:49:37 +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 JAA17769 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:49:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10uPQe-0007bm-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:49:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:46:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Pass with the wrong hand In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >Hi all, > >Recently in my club, I was called after all players had >P on a board and spread thier cards faced up searching >which side had more points. They then realised that one >of them (3rd seat) had the wrong cards (from the board >they just played before). I'd rule 60/40 to the non-offenders > >Law 17D (Cards from wrong board) can evidently not >be used to "saved the board" and "Normal Play of the >Board is Impossible" as stated in Law 12A2. > >What is the best decision? > >Use Law 12 and allow an artificial score (A- to the pair >who had the wrong cards and A+ to the other) ? > >Let the "All Pass" stand ? Using what Law ? No. When we put the right cards back into 3rd seat's hand we aren't going to get the same auction and so we cancel anyway. (even if they hadn't looked) > >In this hand, the "All Pass" gives less then an A- >to the offenders. doesn't matter IMO > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > -- 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 Jun 17 09:49:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA17780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:49:39 +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 JAA17770 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:49:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10uPQe-0005sm-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:49:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:48:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> As long as you ignore the sections on arrow switching. Arrow switch one >> eighth of the boards in a Mitchell. Anything else is *wrong*. Excellent >> book otherwise. > >Why? > This article is on David Stevenson's web-site, author me. I'd also refer you to the late John Manning's website (navigable for DWS site) Why only 1 in 8? Health Warning: This is not for the faint-hearted. This article sets out to show, both empirically and also with some fancy math, that arrow switching about 1/8 of the boards in a Mitchell allows one to declare an overall winner with a great degree of fairness, and that arrow switching more than this is incorrect. I must acknowledge my debt to David Martin who ran a brilliant seminar on this topic in 1997 and got me really interested in the subject. I should also acknowledge the contributions of the late John Manning to the subject and his book of movements that every TD should carry. As a start point we will consider the 8-round share-and-relay movement because it illustrates the effects of the switch very clearly. For simplicity we will have "1-board rounds". The matchpointing will be by the English method where 2 points are awarded for beating another pair and one for a tie. ACBLers should just divide by two. We will designate that pair 1NS are world experts who always make 1NT and that at all other tables the hand is passed out. This is just to keep the numbers small and easy to follow. EW have added 10. The travellers are scored on first available line with Pair 1 above Pair 8 (the sharers) and Boards 1 & 8 are below. The heading MPs shows the scores without a switch and the Switch column shows the score where the last round is switched (denoted by *s. For Board 1 we can see that 13 vs 2 get 6 and 8 respectively). Board 1 || Board 8 Pairs|Score| .Mps.|Switch || Pairs|Score | .Mps.|Switch NS EW| + - | NS EW| NS EW || NS EW| + - | NS EW| NS EW 1 11|90 | 14 0| 14 0 || 7 17| 0 | 6 8| 8 6 8 18| 0 | 6 8| 6 8 || 6 15| 0 | 6 8| 8 6 7 16| 0 | 6 8| 6 8 || 5 13| 0 | 6 8| 8 6 6 14| 0 | 6 8| 6 8 || 4 18| 0 | 6 8| 8 6 5 12| 0 | 6 8| 6 8 || 3 16| 0 | 6 8| 8 6 4 17| 0 | 6 8| 6 8 || 2 14| 0 | 6 8| 8 6 3 15| 0 | 6 8| 6 8 || *1 12|90 | 14 0| 0 14 2 *13| 0 | 6 8| 8 6 || *8 11| 0 | 6 8| 8 6 Setting out the scores for Boards 1-8 on a recap sheet with no switch we get: Boards Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total %age 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 112 100.00 2- 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 48 42.86 11 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 56 50.00 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 56 50.00 etc Check Total: 112x8 = 896 This is as we expect in that Pair 1 takes 7.14% from Pairs 2-8 for their extra 50% Now let us score it with the arrrow switch (denoted by the *), and something strange happens. Not only do pairs 2-8 get an extra 2 mps from the fact they get the benefit of the EW line when they switch, they also gain 2 mps from the board when Pair 1 switches and they don't. They gain 4 matchpoints.total. Here is the recap sheet for the one round arrow switch: Boards Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total %age 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 112 100.00 2 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 3 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 4 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 5 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 52 46.43 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 52 46.43 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 52 46.43 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 48 42.86 11 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 56 50.00 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 56 50.00 13 6 8 8 8 8 8 0 6 52 46.43 14-18 5x8 + 2x6 + 1x0 52 46.43 Check Total: 1x112 + 2x56 + 12x52 + 1x48 = 896 Some Sponsoring Organisations tend to switch half the rounds. Let us see what happens if we arrow switch the last 4 rounds Boards Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total %age 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 112 100.00 2 8 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 52 46.43 3 8 8 6 6 8 8 6 6 56 50.00 4 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 6 60 53.57 5 6 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 60 53.57 6 6 6 8 8 6 6 8 8 56 50.00 7 6 6 6 8 6 6 6 8 52 46.45 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 48 42.86 11 0 6 8 6 6 8 6 8 48 42.86 12 8 8 6 8 8 6 8 0 52 46.45 13 6 8 8 6 6 8 0 6 48 42.86 14 8 6 8 8 8 0 6 8 52 46.45 15 6 8 6 8 0 6 8 6 48 42.86 16 8 6 8 0 8 8 6 8 52 46.45 17 6 8 0 6 6 8 8 6 48 42.86 18 8 0 6 8 8 6 8 8 52 46.45 Check Total 112 + 60x2 + 56x2 + 52x6 + 48x5 = 896 Consider the one round arrow switch: It isn't quite perfect but it's darned close. The losers are those who share with the "experts" and the gainers those who switch the same board as the experts but play in the opposite direction. (Board 8 is switched twice as it's shared, and board 4 sits out the last round) A double- weave movement would work even better but it requires player co- operation. NB If it worked perfectly all pairs (except Pair 1) would score an impossible fractional 52 plus a bit mps. And the 4 round switch: Depending on our seat there's a difference to us of 11% with a pair of "world experts" in the game. This is still 2% if the experts run a 60% game. It is self evident that the one round arrow switch works better. What we have done is to show the degree of competition between each other pair and a particular pair (Pair 1) with different switching strategies Let's look at this more closely. We'll use the 8 Table Mitchell, one round switched. [Set arm-waving on]. We can see that arrow switching one round causes a whole lot of matchpoints to change lines, compared with no switches. If I arrow- switch one round then so does all the other pairs in my line. - and so compared with each other we have arrow switched one quarter of the boards.. So 3/4 of the competition comes from our line and 1/4 from the other line. Which means that nett, 3/4-1/4=1/2 of the competition is from our line, and the rest (the other half) comes from the other line. Which means we have balanced the competition between the two lines. It now doesn't matter if the strong or weak pair sits in our line or the other line, on average we get the same competition from them regardless. [Set arm-waving off] 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! I promised you some fancy maths and here it comes: Let Q be the number of rounds arrow switched Let R be the number of rounds (times a board is played) Let T be the number of tables While you are playing a board there are three other sorts of pair: 1) Your Direct opponents (A) You can get R-1 mps from them compared to average 2) Your Indirect Opponents (B) playing the board the same way round. +1 mp 3) Your Allies (C) playing the board the other way round -1 mp If you get a top then; A loses R-1 mps, all of B loses 1 mp and all of C gains 1 mp So the degree of competition (compared with average) between any two pairs (i,j) in one line but not near each other is expressed as (R- 1).Aij + Bij - Cij matchpoints. For R rounds with Q rounds arrow switched the competition against each other pair in the same line is 0 + (R-2Q) -2Q matchpoints. There are three terms reflecting: direct opponents (A); the pairs in our line (B); the pairs in the other line (C). The 2Q happens because both we and they switch in our line and on different boards Since one never plays any of the people in one's own line we can ignore (R-1).A, hence the zero term (A). The R-2Q refers to those playing this board in my line (B); and the -2Q refers to the opposite line's players that I'm not currently playing (C) So we can say that the competition with each other pair in our line is R-4Q The total amount of competition is expressed as R(T-1) [the check total], so the average competition available is R(T-1)/(2T-1) mps where 2T-1 is the number of other pairs. In other words we want to fight for the same number of matchpoints with every other pair to a grand total equal to the check total. So for fairness in a movement we can say R-4Q must be equal R(T-1)/(2T- 1). This expression says "The competition between any two pairs in our line" must be equal to "the average competition between any two pairs regardless of line" We rewrite this as R-4Q must equal R(T-1)/(2(T-1) + 1) This is unwieldy but if we drop the +1 term, then the RHS gets a bit bigger And R-4Q must be slightly less than R(T-1)/(2(T-1), whence R-4Q must be slightly less than R/2 and so 4Q must be slightly more than R/2 and so Q, the number of arrow switches must be slightly more than R/8, We must arrow switch slightly more than 1/8 of the rounds for fairness. Anything else is WRONG!!! In another article I'll be looking at multi-session, and mult-section events John Probst, London, April 1999 -- 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 Jun 17 11:40:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA17990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:40:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA17985 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:40:04 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14390) by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id vCTLa13734; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:37:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:37:49 EDT Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 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 6/16/99 7:42:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu writes: > (not, alas, something to be > assumed in the ACBL) Kojak here. You could have put the period after the word assumed. That would have been accurate, less parochial, and more in line with my experience. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 12:53:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA18126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:53:21 +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 MAA18121 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:53:09 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14390) by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id lWIGa08017; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:49:56 EDT Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 To: jonbriss@ix9.ix.netcom.com CC: 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 6/16/99 3:54:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonbriss@ix9.ix.netcom.com writes: > Jeez, Kojak. A nice intellectual discussion was progressing, then you felt > the > need to inject personality and aspersion. Can't we keep the exchange of > ideas > impersonal? Kojak here. Sorry you feel it to be personal. I read the article in the ACBL Bulletin, and now have your words in your posting. The words in the posting have a much less exculpatory sound. But, I repeat --- where were the skilled people who have the same powers as the TD according to Law 93? Are you telling me that the committee wanted to change the ruling back to what (I am told) the TD first ruled before consulting with another TD? Is this ruling a TD error with the Committee's hands bound by Law 93B3? Are you saying that the committee could not persuade the TD to change his ruling? Was the Chief TD apprised of the problem and advised that the Committee thought the TD instruction on the Law was wrong and they wished to have the ruling changed? After all, it's ultimately his responsibility if a staff TD rules wrongly, isn't it? > Sure, I'm protective of the NABC AC. That's part of my job. Your view -- and you are certainly entitled to it. However, I would think this remark assumes the need for "protection". From what? An honest error? My view -- better to accept and improve (which your posting implies is being done). I find myself protective of the game of bridge which takes precedence in my mind to any NCBO or AC. Sometimes it gets hot in the kitchen - I've been there. >some policy and procedure changes (internal and confidential) have been >made or will soon be implemented at the NABC AC due to this case. Wow. Internal and confidential!!! Impressive. I guess we'll see what they are when we compare what we have with what is new -- then they won't be internal and confidential anymore. Again, sorry you think I'm injecting personality and aspersion. If it came across that way to you and others, I apologize. Comments on personalities or aspersion's would be in private E-mail to you, not on the net. It's the way I do business. Thanks for your item 5. I understand your position. But, I'm still left with Harry Truman's words........The buck stops here.......THAT IS WHAT APPEALS COMMITTEES ARE FOR. Your point #1 is an interesting side issue. Are you saying that the other side would not have appealed because they probably thought they had no legitimate case (which would be the only reason to fear an Appeal Without Merit Point)? Did they express this doubt to the committee or simply accept the windfall? Kojak. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 13:19:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:19:25 +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 NAA18226 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:19:04 +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 UAA16333 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004f01beb870$145957c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:16:53 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 5:21 AM Subject: Re: Advice from on high. > In a message dated 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a > > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. > Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F > I can see nothing in 40D that makes an opening bid a convention if the number of cards held in the denomination named is likely (or unlikely, for that matter) to be exceeded in another denomination. In fact, I see nothing about opening bids at all. By partnership agreement I can open 1H when holding any three cards, or even a singleton ace, and it is not a convention according to the Laws. Is the ACBL saying that my next bid must be in a suit that is as short, or shorter, than the suit opened, or the opening becomes a convention? Pretty weird! Changing the definition of convention by including a canape intent conflicts with the definition given by the Laws, a violation of L80F. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 13:44:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA18292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:44:27 +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 NAA18287 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 13:44:12 +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 UAA20158 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007c01beb873$a0bc5700$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906162304.TAA05412@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:43:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe the subject line is wrong in this exchange. Now let's talk about Chicago Case 10, please. :)) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Steve Willner wrote: > -------- > From: "Jon C. Brissman" > 5. My view is that the wrong result obtained on this case due to > breakdowns at three levels: the TDs responsible for the floor ruling, > the TD screener, and the AC. Although I do not agree with the AC > decision, I recognize that two other levels had to err for the case to > be presented to the AC. I do not exonerate the AC, but I regret that > it is the body that has received the bulk of the criticism. > --------- > > Thanks for the valuable comments, and of course I agree that a wrong > interpretation of the laws was the fundamental problem. > > Could you please clarify where you believe the AC went wrong, given the > reading of the laws that was imposed on them? > > Also, are you able to comment on future procedures for ensuring that > AC's have good advice on what the laws say? > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 14:01:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:01:54 +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 OAA18323 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:01:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (pm30-3-17.ac.net [205.138.47.106]) by primus.ac.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA25709 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:01:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906170401.AAA25709@primus.ac.net> X-Sender: lobo@mail.ac.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 00:08:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws discussion group From: Linda Trent Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 In-Reply-To: <199906162340.TAA05463@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:40 PM 6/16/99 -0400, you wrote: >> From: Schoderb@aol.com >> Kojak here. One of the many necessary steps to solve these problems is to do >> away with the attitude that the AC and the TD are in an adversarial >> relationship. > Yes, we appeals people have been asking for years that Directors be included as voting Committte members and have been getting nowhere... the request has always been turned down. However - I am happy to report that three Directors will be joining the expert panel for the Vancouver casebook! Hooray! ps. - haven't you been invited and turned us down Kojak? *nudge* *nudge* we need you guys! You know the laws! we are not so hot at that! Most of the Directors (large number) are just wonderful to work with and a few are not so wonderful and cooperative (small number). I'm sure the Directors feel the same way about Appeals folks. Hopefully we can get all the good folks trying harder *together* and make progress. I think we are heading in the right direction. Please, too, and this is not an excuse, but please have a little sensitivity when you remember and consider who the Appeals Screening Director was for the first half of Vancouver and interacting with the Committee in this particular case ... sometimes it is not always easy to re-evaluate someone's skills when you have known and relied on their past excellent work when you are in a particular situation. Brian Moran was a lot sicker than any of us really knew at the time - although some of us suspected. Trust me - looking back and basing this statement on a few retrospective observations, he was not at his best. It was so sad, and I miss him greatly - as will the rest of the bridge world... Linda From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 14:32:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:32:51 +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 OAA18387 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:32:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id XAA26007; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:31:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from irv-ca57-35.ix.netcom.com(199.35.99.163) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025955; Wed Jun 16 23:30:46 1999 Message-ID: <001b01beb879$c6c05680$a36323c7@uspppjonbriss> Reply-To: "Jon C. Brissman" From: "Jon C. Brissman" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <199906162304.TAA05412@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:27:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 > Thanks for the valuable comments, and of course I agree that a wrong > interpretation of the laws was the fundamental problem. > > Could you please clarify where you believe the AC went wrong, given the > reading of the laws that was imposed on them? Steve - I don't wish to disappoint you, since I recognize the staunch support you have voiced in the past. But the deliberations of the AC (who said what and when) are privileged, and it is difficult to answer your query without stepping over that line. Generally: The screener who presented the case had encyclopedic knowledge of the laws and had been exceptionally dependable over years of working with the NABC AC, and thus was accorded great deference when he voiced his interpretation of the law. In perfect hindsight, perhaps the AC should have challenged him more forcibly. (But truthfully, I can't say that I would have done so had I been on that panel.) > > Also, are you able to comment on future procedures for ensuring that > AC's have good advice on what the laws say? > We have flow-charted the decision tree for the commonly-heard appeals (UI, MI, etc.). This was the first L45 case in my memory, and we had no flow chart for this law then (we do now). Rich Colker, the screening staff, and I will all be very involved in the future when an uncommonly-appealed law is at issue. We can ensure that ACs will not decide in a vacuum without adequate input about the law at issue. NABC AC members will be advised as to their remedies if they are dissatisfied with a law interpretation. Can I say that the NABC AC won't do something embarrassing in the future? No. We're human, as are TDs, NFL referees and Supreme Court justices; all are prone to and have committed memorable lapses, and will continue to do so in perpetuity. But we can strive for perfection while recognizing it is unattainable. Good questions, Steve. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 14:55:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA18462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:55:17 +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 OAA18457 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:55:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id XAA28457; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:53:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from irv-ca57-35.ix.netcom.com(199.35.99.163) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma028437; Wed Jun 16 23:53:34 1999 Message-ID: <002a01beb87c$f5fff380$a36323c7@uspppjonbriss> Reply-To: "Jon C. Brissman" From: "Jon C. Brissman" To: , Cc: , References: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 21:50:38 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 > Kojak here. I read the article in the > ACBL Bulletin, and now have your words in your posting. The words in the > posting have a much less exculpatory sound. That's because the author of the Bulletin article excerpted my comments from a lengthy telephone interview. It was accurate reporting, but my statement was made in the context of an overall assessment of the case which included everything I said in today's posting. He hadn't the space to reprint the entire interview, and thus quoted the parts he deemed newsworthy. > > But, I repeat --- where were the skilled people who have the same powers as > the TD according to Law 93? Are you telling me that the committee wanted to > change the ruling back to what (I am told) the TD first ruled before > consulting with another TD? Is this ruling a TD error with the Committee's > hands bound by Law 93B3? Are you saying that the committee could not persuade > the TD to change his ruling? Was the Chief TD apprised of the problem and > advised that the Committee thought the TD instruction on the Law was wrong > and they wished to have the ruling changed? After all, it's ultimately his > responsibility if a staff TD rules wrongly, isn't it? The deliberations of the AC are privileged, but I think I can state without violating that trust that: Yes, the AC did argue with the TD over his interpretation; yes, at least some of the AC felt bound by the TD's interpretation; and no, the Chief TD was not consulted (probably due to the great deference accorded to the screening TD who presented the case). > Your point #1 is an interesting side issue. Are you saying that the other > side would not have appealed because they probably thought they had no > legitimate case (which would be the only reason to fear an Appeal Without > Merit Point)? Did they express this doubt to the committee or simply accept > the windfall? No, I have nothing on which to base my statement other than my assessment of the personalities involved (none of whom were stupid). My projection is that, had the TD ruled played card and result stands, each of the players involved would have made a risk-benefit analysis and concluded that this was not a ruling that could be successfully appealed. Of course, we'll never know for certain. Jon From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 16:05:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA18601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:05:37 +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 QAA18596 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:05:27 +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 XAA14659 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:05:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <015301beb887$58904c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990615092551.00710090@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:59:07 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:10 AM 6/15/99 -0400, Bruce wrote: > > > The ACBL seems to change gears every so often. There are > >several mistakes they've made and corrected in this period. This > >seems like a whopper. > > > > Does anyone know if this is still ACBL policy? It seems quite > >odd to have a policy that in spirit, if not in letter, contradicts the > >Laws. > > Nothing has been published in the Bulletin on the subject since Oakie's > article, so that article still stands as the most recent statement of > policy by the ACBL to its membership. > > So I suppose TDs entering ACBL employ since then (1978) are given a copy of that issue for guidance in handling psychs? No, because *The Bridge Bulletin* is not the repository for official regulations, though it may report them from time to time. Current regulations are maintained in the Tech Files of ACBLScore, in the ACBL guide *Duplicate Decisions,* on the ACBL website, and maybe other places that I don't know about. But not in *The Bridge Bulletin*. Oakie's comments on psychs do not appear in those places (so far as I can tell), which reinforces my belief that he was the Bobby Wolff of the 70s: a respected player with far-out legal opinions shared by very few. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 20:37:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA18928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:37:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18921 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:37:16 +1000 (EST) From: RCraigH@aol.com Received: from RCraigH@aol.com (4423) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id uDJJa20927; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <422b40f4.249a2929@aol.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 06:34:17 EDT Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 To: jonbriss@ix.netcom.com, 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 10 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 6/17/99 12:35:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonbriss@ix.netcom.com writes: << We have flow-charted the decision tree for the commonly-heard appeals (UI, MI, etc.). This was the first L45 case in my memory, and we had no flow chart for this law then (we do now). >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Great! Where do we find the flowcharts? Craig Hemphill From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 22:34:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA19365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:34:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA19360 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:34:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u1.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id IAA28325 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:33:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 08:33:53 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <37680794.7ED60E90@xtra.co.nz> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, wayne wrote: > richard lighton wrote: > > > > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > > > > > > The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a > > > > precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. > > > Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F > > > > > But this interpretation assumes that a 3-card major suit > > opening bid is a convention. The definitions say otherwise. > > > > The way round this is to ammend the definition of a conventional > > opening bid to include the notion that opening a 3-card suit > > is a convention. Then make opening a 3-card minor an allowable > > convention. > > Why do you want a way around this? > > If this is a good method then we will be able to improve our own game > and if it is a bad method then we will improve our own scores by beating > those that play this inferior method. > I do not (personally) want to bar 3-card major openings. But if the powers that be want to be able to, then the suggested ammendment to the laws would allow this unambiguously. I don't think this forum is the appropriate place for discussions of bidding theory. -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 23:06:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:06:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-27.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (root@slot0-27.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19480 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-134.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03288 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:02:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:02:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I didn't write this. Marvin L. French wrote: : Bruce J. Moore wrote: :> :> : When Mr. Oakie, speaking officially for the ACBL, writes, : "Expert players :> : and the large majority of experienced club and tournament : players seldom or :> : never make a psychic bid," is it any wonder that we have come to : regard :> : psychs by our opponents as "unexpected"? :> :> : Mr. Oakie, long gone of course, was never an official spokesman for : the ACBL, even when he was ACBL President. The only official ACBL : regulations come from the Board of Directors and National Laws : Commission. Don Oakie's statements, while authoritative-sounding, : were merely personal opinions. *The Bridge Bulletin* editor picked : them up and published them, they were put into official-looking : documents, they were adopted by ACBL TDs, but they were not : "official." : IMO. : Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 17 23:06:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA19491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:06:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot0-27.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (root@slot0-27.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.27]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA19485 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 23:06:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-134.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03279 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:02:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 09:02:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Incorrect (and not even an IMHO ;-))? I'll ask again. Are Mr Oakie's statements ACBL policy? His statements, IMHO, are at odds with the Law. And what of the words from the Encyclopedia quoted by Eric Landau? These words explicitly state a goal of effectively prohibiting psychs. If these statements are not ACBL policy, then I know only of the canape' regulation which someone else has already mentioned. My quoted words below are *based* upon Law 40. I stand by my statement that any policy that acts as a de facto prohibition of psyching contradicts at least the *spirit* of Law 40A which says: 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. Policies that explicitly state that psyching is to be discouraged (or worse, outlawed) or that a single occurrence forms a partnership understanding seem to be at odds with the text above. Further, my reading here has convinced me that the British have a much better policy on dealing with psychs than we do on this side of the pond. Let's adopt their solution. Classify a psych as green, amber, or red and adjust if appropriate. This seems quite practical. Let's adopt the British method and concentrate our efforts on *unsolved* problems. Bruce Richard F Beye wrote: : ----- Original Message ----- : From: Eric Landau :> At 12:10 AM 6/15/99 -0400, Bruce wrote: :> :> > The ACBL seems to change gears every so often. There are :> >several mistakes they've made and corrected in this period. This :> >seems like a whopper. :> > :> > Does anyone know if this is still ACBL policy? It seems quite :> >odd to have a policy that in spirit, if not in letter, contradicts the :> >Laws. :> :> Nothing has been published in the Bulletin on the subject since Oakie's :> article, so that article still stands as the most recent statement of :> policy by the ACBL to its membership. :> : INCORRECT! I know of no ACBL policy that is in opposition to the Laws. I : suggest that Eric preface statements such as the one made above with 'In My : Very Humble Opinion.' I hope Bruce will take the time to read Law 40. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 02:54:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:54:51 +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 CAA22543 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:54:43 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (4243) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id sFYIa11359; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:52:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:52:30 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: mfrench1@san.rr.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 6/16/99 11:22:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > I can see nothing in 40D that makes an opening bid a convention if > the number of cards held in the denomination named is likely (or > unlikely, for that matter) to be exceeded in another denomination. Kojak here. You can see nothing conventional about an agreement with my partner that my opening of 1 heart is most likely short, and that my true suit is somewhere else? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 02:54:05 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:54:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22527 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:53:57 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (4243) by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id eBDa020927; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:52:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3df7f0cd.249a81d3@aol.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:52:35 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: Bruce.Moore@akamail.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 6/17/99 9:09:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, moorebj@oh.verio.com writes: > Policies that explicitly state that psyching is to be discouraged (or > worse, outlawed) or that a single occurrence forms a partnership > understanding seem to be at odds with the text above. Kojak. I'd like to echo this with a small change of wording - change the words "seem to be" to "are". > Further, my reading here has convinced me that the British have a much > better policy on dealing with psychs than we do on this side of the > pond. Let's adopt their solution. Classify a psych as green, amber, > or red and adjust if appropriate. This seems quite practical. Kojak. Practical? Yes. Better than ACBL way of handling this? Yes. Fully in the spirit of 40A? I'm not so sure. I'd appreciate a complete copy of the British way (Hey, David - can you send me one, pleeeeze?) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 02:55:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:55:09 +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 CAA22550 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:55:02 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (4243) by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id eBELa17124; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:52:31 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: lighton@idt.net, 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 6/17/99 8:37:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lighton@idt.net writes: > I don't think this forum is the appropriate place for discussions > of bidding theory. Kojak. Roger dodger you (old) codger. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 02:55:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA22582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:55:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA22577 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 02:55:31 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (4243) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id uQGUa14487; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 12:52:38 EDT Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 To: jonbriss@ix.netcom.com, 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 6/17/99 12:35:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonbriss@ix.netcom.com writes: > We have flow-charted the decision tree for the commonly-heard appeals (UI, > MI, etc.). This was the first L45 case in my memory, and we had no flow > chart for this law then (we do now). > > Rich Colker, the screening staff, and I will all be very involved in the > future when an uncommonly-appealed law is at issue. We can ensure that ACs > will not decide in a vacuum without adequate input about the law at issue. > NABC AC members will be advised as to their remedies if they are > dissatisfied with a law interpretation. > > Can I say that the NABC AC won't do something embarrassing in the future? > No. We're human, as are TDs, NFL referees and Supreme Court justices; all > are prone to and have committed memorable lapses, and will continue to do so > in perpetuity. But we can strive for perfection while recognizing it is > unattainable. Kojak here. Thanks. It looks to me like you've got a good handle on the problems and solutions. We ALL can learn from this one, and I hope you will freely help those other NCBOs, Zones, and Sponsoring Organizations who have recently produced other stunning AC decisions with cleaning up their houses. Maybe they'll even ask for such help. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 03:29:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:29:35 +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 DAA22663 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:29:26 +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 KAA20100 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:29:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <018401beb8e6$e7fa9320$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <19990616164106.97005.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:29:01 -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 Michael Farebrother wrote: (snip) > Which leads me to the ACBL GCC. It states: > > > Definitions: > 1.An opening suit bid or response is considered natural if for minors it > shows 3 or more cards in that suit and for majors it shows 4 or more cards > in that suit. A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced > (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons). > > This seems to me (I'd use IMHO here, but I actually consider myself to be > humble, and standard net.practice is for the reader to add the unspoken (NS) > between M and H) to be in direct conflict with the Laws declaration of > Convention. Maybe not, though - because maybe natural doesn't mean "not > conventional". > Oddly, the ACBL Convention Charts do not define the word "convention," and for a good reason. Anyone reading it would realize that some of the rules control bids that are not conventions, which is illegal (40D, 80F). Instead, they define "natural," with the unstated implication that bids that are not "natural" (as they define the word) are conventions. They could not say that explicitly, because it isn't true, they could only imply it and hope that no one notices what a dodge this is. For instance, opening the bidding with a doubleton club provided it includes a high card is not a convention, but the ACBL implies it is, by saying it is not "natural." Ditto for the three-card major openings. Ditto for the language about notrump openings or overcalls. There is nothing in the Laws' definition of convention that relates to distribution, so opening 1NT with any 16-18 HCP hand, even with 5-4-4, while pretty weird, is not a convention. Want to know the ACBL's definition of "convention"? It is currently provided under ACBL Conventions Regulations on the ACBL website: Definition of Conventions "ACBL defines conventions as.calls that by agreement, rather than logical inference, give or request information unrelated to the denomination named." Where did they get that? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 03:59:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA22752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:59:38 +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 DAA22747 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 03:59:31 +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 KAA24294 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01b901beb8eb$1f7d8e20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:52:56 -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 Bruce J. Moore wrote (really) > I didn't write this. > > Marvin L. French wrote: > : Bruce J. Moore wrote: > :> > :> : When Mr. Oakie, speaking officially for the ACBL, writes, > : "Expert players > :> : and the large majority of experienced club and tournament > : players seldom or > :> : never make a psychic bid," is it any wonder that we have come to > : regard > :> : psychs by our opponents as "unexpected"? > :> > :> Sorry Bruce, that was Eric Landau. Sorry Eric. I'll try to be more careful when editing in order to eliminate unnecessary stuff. Bruce did write: >It seems quite odd to have a policy that in spirit, if not in letter, contradicts the Laws. And Eric Landau also wrote: >Oakie himself says that, "Where psychic bids are concerned, however, the : nature of the bid or call is such that the need to disclose implicit : understandings has the effect of practically preventing their use." Maybe that should be "effective use." The ACBL (Tech Files, quoting Jul/Oct 1992 "Directions") has stated that if one discloses (e.g., with an Alert) that partner's bid in a certain situation is sometimes psychic, then the bid becomes a convention, not a psych. Since any defense against a convention (such as a takeout double) is legal, the disclosed psychic practice would always be acceptable as a defensive action against a convention, no matter how frequently employed. Or would it be termed "destructive"? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 04:28:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:28:06 +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 EAA22852 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:27:59 +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 LAA28747 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:27:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01ba01beb8ef$190e1380$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <422b40f4.249a2929@aol.com> Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:27:42 -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 Craig Hemphill wrote: Jon Brissman wrote: > > << We have flow-charted the decision tree for the commonly-heard appeals (UI, > MI, etc.). This was the first L45 case in my memory, and we had no flow > chart for this law then (we do now). >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------ --------- > > Great! Where do we find the flowcharts? > > Craig Hemphill Here is the "Action Tree for UI" provided AC members being "trained" in a seminar conducted by Alan LeBendig (I believe), which I purloined at the Chicago NABC a year ago: I don't see anything about MI on it, so maybe it's not current. 1. Was there UI? >> No, dismiss case 2. Did the UI demonstrably suggest one action over others? >> No, dismiss case 3. Was there a LA to the action chosen >> No, dismiss appeal, case over [see note 1 - mlf] Yes >> Adjust score based on L12C, per the following branches: Is it possible to ascertain the likely or probable result if the infraction had not occurred? [see note 2 - mlf] No >> -- Award an adjusted score based on the reponsibility for the irregularity: Avg- to a contestant directly at fault, Avg to a contestant partially at fault, at avg+ to a faultless contestant. See Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play. Scores need not balance. Yes >> For the offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. Scores awarded need not balance. For the non-offending side the most favorable result that was likely had no irregularity occurred. Scores awarded need not balance ___________________________________ Note 1: It would seem that "LA" should be defined here. Note 2: This is poor wording, since it is not required that a probable or likely result be determined. Time and again TDs and ACs are awarding artificial scores when they cannot determine accurately what would have happened absent the infraction. Accuracy is not required, merely 1/3 or 1/6 probability respectively, for the NOs and OS. While the last two actions in the chart clarify the intent, too often TDs/ACs don't get that far. ------------------------------------------------------- The decision tree is accompanied by a full page describing possible sources of UI, which looked pretty good so I won't quote it. MI is mentioned on this page, but no examples are given. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 04:41:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:41:43 +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 EAA22931 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:41:32 +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 OAA24930 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:41:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA06153 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:41:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906171841.OAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Advice from on high. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Schoderb@aol.com > Kojak here. You can see nothing conventional about an agreement with my > partner that my opening of 1 heart is most likely short, and that my true > suit is somewhere else? An opening 1H bid as described most likely would be a convention. It is not, however, an accurate description of an opening 1H bid in typical canape systems. Closer might be: natural and non-forcing (forcing in some systems), normally four or more hearts, might occasionally be three in (specified) special cases, either one-suited in hearts or hearts are the second-longest suit. (Perhaps someone more familiar with canape systems can do a better job.) Compare with 1H in a five card major system: natural and non-forcing, normally at least five hearts but occasionally four very strong ones, spades definitely shorter than hearts, all other suits shorter than hearts or equal length (or exactly 4-5 in the reds in some systems). (I have suppressed specification of strength in both descriptions. It would be required at the table but isn't relevant for determining if a bid is a convention.) I can make what I think is a credible argument that _both_ of the above are conventions, but people are unwilling to accept that conclusion as regards the five-card major 1H. So why accept it as regards the canape 1H? Both seem to carry about the same amount of information regarding other suits. If you want an opening bid that is _strictly_ not conventional, look at Paulsen 1S: four or more spades, no information about any other suit. (Yes, might have a lower-ranking nine-carder!) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 04:48:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA22961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:48:47 +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 EAA22956 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 04:48:37 +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 OAA25195 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:48:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA06161 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:48:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 14:48:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906171848.OAA06161@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Here is the "Action Tree for UI" provided AC members being "trained" > in a seminar conducted by Alan LeBendig (I believe), > 2. Did the UI demonstrably suggest one action over others? >> No, > dismiss case This should say something about the _chosen_ action being suggested over others. If the UI suggests "bid," and I pass, that's legal; no adjustment. Everyone knows this, but it's easy to neglect when you try to write teaching materials. (Believe me, I've done worse!) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 10:42:35 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA23538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:42:35 +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 KAA23533 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:42:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10umjS-0001sF-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 00:42:12 +0000 Message-ID: <$GkewaDm2Ya3Ewy1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 01:07:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: establishment References: <19fc043e.2497d57e@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <19fc043e.2497d57e@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: >In a message dated 6/15/99 8:39:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >bridge@dynamite.com.au writes: > >> We then got a post from Kojak. In it he says that no-one has the >> > *right* to make a call that establishes a revoke once attention has been >> > drawn. He did *not* say that this means he supports the view that the >> > revoke was not established when partner called illegally. It has been >> > assumed by others that this is what Kojak meant. I do not know: no >> > doubt he can make his meaning clear if he wishes. >Kojak here. I apologize for my poor use of English. I mean that according to >Law 62A and Law 9B2 we have come to a stop in the play. Reading all the >MUSTS and SHALLS involved, and the sequential violations occurring, the >revoke IS NOT established, nor can it become established by any action of any >of the players. The crucial point, IMHO (notice I used the H, David) is >that we don't change the nature of the first infraction --- the failure to >follow suit --- by a subsequent action which is taken in violaton of another >Law. I find it very difficult to read Law 62A, understand the sequence >therein, and find that an action taken in violation of Law 9 negates these >instructions. Right: a very reasonable approach, and I am glad we now know where we are. [As for humility, I like to let others decide whether my opinions are humble or not. ] > Using the disliked word - I CLEARLY remember discussions with >Edgar as to the manner in which multiple violations of Law should be handled. >I agree that his word "was" Law but no longer "is" - the process to change >that has not yet taken place, so pragmatically we continue with what we have. WE? We don't have anything of the sort, Kojak. You have. If we all had a set of notes from Kaplan, covering how to rule in difficult situations, then I would be happy to accept them. When we have two possible approaches, both appearing to follow the written Law, being told with no explanation that Kaplan supports one or the other is hardly convincing. If you have had discussions with Kaplan on multiple violations then I for one would be very happy to hear about them, and I expect most other people here would. I have never heard before any advice on multiple violations from Kaplan. Ok, I am pleased that you have not just given an opinion, but explained it. It certainly weakens my argument. > I am not supporting any particular view, I'm just telling you how I (and my >assistants) will act in the WBF when these posts on which I comment occur, >unless I am instructed otherwise by official action of the WBFLC. As mentioned below, that is fine for WBF TDs: there is still a question for TDs in other jurisdictions. >For David. You state ..... > >>>"The offender's partner played in defiance of L9B2 and thus >illegally......" >Yep, he played when the Law said he shouldn't, and Law47A tells us what >happens to it. Also please read Law 60C which says that its a boo-boo which >might incur it's own penalty. It certainly doesn't say that it changes the >previous violation, does it? No, it doesn't. >What is of great interest to me is what happens now. BLML has gone through >long and torturous postings, flip flops, opinions, etc. And apparently has >arrived at an impasse over what is the proper action for the TD to take. >Do we now go along our individual ways, or can there be an agreed path to >follow until further official word comes from the WBFLC? And where does this >leave the provision of Law 81C5, and the many TDs and ACs on this mortal coil? Look, Kojak, this is the first time anyone has argued for the position you have clearly supported. The only arguments for this position previously have been [a] It is obvious and [b] Kaplan said it. Your arguments are quite convincing - let us see whether we can get a few more useful comments and perhaps come to a consensus. On a more general level, how do we expect TDs and ACs to rule? They read the Law book, and in many cases they still require further help. The WBFLC has made certain pronouncements, which are additional to the Laws, and we expect those to be followed. But for the great mass of TDs, they glean something from their national bodies. Some of them are pretty much in the dark. We try and help such TDs on BLML. BLML only has opinions, and they do not supersede what TDs are told by their national bodies, but it is useful anyway. At WBF level, you have stated how TDs rule: fine, WBF TDs will rule that way. If the EBU tells me to rule that way, then I shall, whatever I think. [To be accurate, I shall rule that way unless I am working for the EBL, or the WBF, or whoever, when I am required to follow the dictates of whomever I am working for.] Of course, BLML has another use: if we were to convince you that you were wrong, then you might re-consider how WBF TDs should rule. If I am finally convinced by this thread, then it might affect how EBU TDs rule in future, because I may bring it to our training weekends, although my word is nowhere near final at them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 12:47:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:47:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot1-178.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot1-178.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.178]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23738 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-178.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08388 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:46:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:46:55 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Didn't Bill Cosby once say, "my arms are too short to box with God"? Well, anyway: L40D says that SOs may regulate bidding conventions. The point being made here (by several others) is that a 1H opening possibly on 3 cards is *not* conventional. It shows length in the suit, offers a playable strain, and says nothing (yet) about length in other suits -- compare it with a SA 1D bid. L80F says that the SO may make additional regulations not in conflict with the Laws. I hope you're not saying that this allows an SO to regulate bids which are not conventional; this interpretation would seem to be odds with L40D just quoted. If the ACBL chooses to interpret these statements in a manner against all logic, there really is not much I can do about it (see paragraph #1 ;-)). I can only hope that the folks making these decisions put the Laws above a "the ways justify the means" mentality. Bruce Schoderb@aol.com wrote: : In a message dated 6/15/99 10:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, : mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: :> The ACBL prohibition of three-card heart openings that could be a :> precursor to a rebid that implies a longer suit, is illegal. : Kojak here. Right OFF!!! See Laws 40D and 80F From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 12:49:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:49:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot1-178.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot1-178.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.178]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23753 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:49:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-178.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA08403 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:48:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 22:48:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why should it matter if I may have some of my length and strength elsewhere? What should matter is whether I have length and strength in the suit I'm opening. Oddly enough, this is consistent with the definition of convention in the FLB as I read it. I've done a simulation of the Roman Club 1H opening. The expected heart length is about 4.3. This compares with an expected length of 4.8 for Goren four card majors and 5.4 for SA five card majors. Three card major openings aren't that common in Roman; they occur only about once every 60 deals. The difference in expected length from 3 card openings is in the noise level. Perhaps Goren should be outlawed next -- lots of people think that *four* card majors are "unnatural". They tell me so every time I play ;-). As long as an opening doesn't deny length (say, some canape' system where one suited hands are opened conventionally), it should not be considered a convention. Let's follow the definition in the Laws and file this mistake along with prohibitions on limit raises and rigid HCP ranges for weak twos. And just perhaps, if the ACBL starts following the *spirit* as well as the letter of the Law, a few of the bridge lawyers (negative sense) will take the hint. Bruce Schoderb@aol.com wrote: : In a message dated 6/16/99 12:44:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, : mdfarebr@hotmail.com writes: :> Ok, so if this is a convention, the ACBL can regulate it. *If* it is a :> convention. : Kojak here. And that is exactly what I meant. The ACBL considers a call : made to indicate that my length and strength are probably somewhere else as a : convention, I believe. Having severed financial ties to the ACBL some time : ago I may not have that exactly correct, but the Erics of BLML can find it : somewhere written out, I'm sure. :> OK........I don"t believe that the spirit of the definition is to regulate : that strongly, but it is within the letter of the Law. : I do think that it was in intent of the ACBL to regualte that strongly. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 13:20:28 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:20:28 +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 NAA23798 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:20:21 +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 UAA19625 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <024801beb939$713621c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990616085607.0071b524@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 20:17:36 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:55 PM 6/15/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > >Mr. Oakie, long gone of course, was never an official spokesman for > >the ACBL, even when he was ACBL President. The only official ACBL > >regulations come from the Board of Directors and National Laws > >Commission. Don Oakie's statements, while authoritative-sounding, > >were merely personal opinions. *The Bridge Bulletin* editor picked > >them up and published them, they were put into official-looking > >documents, they were adopted by ACBL TDs, but they were not > >"official." > > In the wake of the controversy that followed the publication of the > article, some at the ACBL tried to distance themselves from Mr. Oakie, > claiming that he was merely expounding his personal opinion, not the > official policy of the BoD. But that was, and is, pure revisionism. Mr. > Oakie was the past president, a member of the BoD, writing in the League's > official publication, and there was no disclaimer of any kind. Legally, > that makes his writing official (had he, for example, committed libel in > the article, the ACBL could have been held liable). The only regulations or policies that are official come from the BoD acting as a whole, as documented in the BoD minutes, not from any individual. All else is interpretation and opinion. Articles that appear in *The Bridge Bulletin* may interpret and explain BoD policies and regulations, but whatever words they use that are not taken from the BoD minutes are unofficial, not official. I'd better clarify that. When Gary Blaise, as ACBL Chief Tournament Director, promulgates rules for TDs and players to follow, in the *Bulletin* or elsewhere, he is merely implementing in detailed ways the policies and regulations established by the BoD. If he were to write something that is not in accord with a BoD policy or regulation, it would not thereby become an ACBL policy or regulation, it would just be a mistake. The ACBL may be legally responsible for a libel he commits, but that would not make the libel official ACBL opinion. > > Besides, not even the ACBL continues to claim that the article was > unofficial. Quite the contrary. The latest edition of The Official > Encyclopedia of Bridge, published by the ACBL in 1994, says: "Don Oakie > was commissioned by the ACBL Board of Directors to state the League's > position in an article in the ACBL Bulletin. His article appeared in the > February 1978 issue." That doesn't leave much room for the claim that the > article represented nothing more than Mr. Oakie's personal opinions. > The *Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*, Fifth Edition 1994, compiled by Dorthy Francis and Alan Truscott, does not, I believe, claim that it is an ACBL-approved authoritative source for ACBL policies and regulations. The ACBL wasn't the Encyclopedia publisher until 1994, and did not have editorial control over its contents even then. > So what Mr. Oakie wrote was certainly the official policy of the ACBL in > 1978, and continued to be the official policy of the ACBL until at least > 1994, when it was republished, explicitly labeled as official policy, in > the Encyclopedia. And if the BoD has since repudiated Mr. Oakie's > opinions, they have done so in secret. While the BoD may not have repudiated Mr. Oakie's opinions, I don't recall that they ever endorsed them either. "Explicitly labeled as official policy"? My edition says this: "Don Oakie was commissioned by the ACBL Board of Directors to state the League's position in an article in the ACBL *Bulletin*. His article appeared in the February 1978 issue. Here are his conclusions:" His personal conclusions, that is. I don't see any "official policy" label in those words. The proper procedure would have been for him to submit a draft of his article to the BoD, have it entered into the minutes, and have the BoD vote its approval. *Then* it would be official. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 18 23:11:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:11:53 +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 XAA24574 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:11:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA06849 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990618091138.0071df54@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:11:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <024801beb939$713621c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990616085607.0071b524@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:17 PM 6/17/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >The only regulations or policies that are official come from the BoD >acting as a whole, as documented in the BoD minutes, not from any >individual. All else is interpretation and opinion. Articles that >appear in *The Bridge Bulletin* may interpret and explain BoD >policies and regulations, but whatever words they use that are not >taken from the BoD minutes are unofficial, not official. That's like saying that the only regulations or policies that are official in real life come from the laws passed by Congress; articles that appear in the Federal Register (the U.S. compendium of executive-agency documents) are unofficial. If you believe that, try violating an executive-agency regulation and tellin' it to da judge. >I'd better clarify that. When Gary Blaise, as ACBL Chief Tournament >Director, promulgates rules for TDs and players to follow, in the >*Bulletin* or elsewhere, he is merely implementing in detailed ways >the policies and regulations established by the BoD. If he were to >write something that is not in accord with a BoD policy or >regulation, it would not thereby become an ACBL policy or >regulation, it would just be a mistake. The ACBL may be legally >responsible for a libel he commits, but that would not make the >libel official ACBL opinion. When Gary Blaise promulgates rules for players to follow, and writes something that isn't ACBL policy, and doesn't subsequently write some kind of clarification or retraction, just how are we supposed to know that what he claimed to be official policy wasn't? >The *Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*, Fifth Edition 1994, compiled >by Dorthy Francis and Alan Truscott, does not, I believe, claim that >it is an ACBL-approved authoritative source for ACBL policies and >regulations. The ACBL wasn't the Encyclopedia publisher until 1994, >and did not have editorial control over its contents even then. It has the ACBL's name and copyrighted logo on it. It's even called "The *Official* Encyclopedia" fer chrissake (presumably with at least the ACBL's permission or agreement). And while it doesn't claim to make policy, it does claim to cite it, giving quotations and sources. If that stuff ain't official it coulda fooled me. >While the BoD may not have repudiated Mr. Oakie's opinions, I don't >recall that they ever endorsed them either. "Explicitly labeled as >official policy"? My edition says this: > >"Don Oakie was commissioned by the ACBL Board of Directors to state >the League's position in an article in the ACBL *Bulletin*. His >article appeared in the February 1978 issue. Here are his >conclusions:" > >His personal conclusions, that is. I don't see any "official policy" >label in those words. The proper procedure would have been for him >to submit a draft of his article to the BoD, have it entered into >the minutes, and have the BoD vote its approval. *Then* it would be >official. So if what's printed in the Bulletin isn't policy, and what's printed in the Encyclopedia isn't policy, where the hell does one go to find out what *is* policy? If the answer were "nowhere; we're just not together enough to really have an official policy anywhere" that would be bad enough. But the suggestion that such policy exists in Duplicate Decisions (available only to TDs) and/or ACBLScore (available only to club managers) is far worse. What Marv is saying, in effect, is that the ACBL passes star-chamber rules that are known only to their enforcers but kept secret from the people who must obey them or find themselves in the dock. I don't think that much of the ACBL BoD, but I don't view them as the kind of shadowy Kafka-esque nightmare manipulators that Marv implies. When an organization publishes something in their own publications saying "this is our policy:..." -- perhaps not technically official (although I don't subscribe to that view), but certainly as official as anything else the folks subject to the policy can get their hands on -- that had better be their policy. Otherwise they are saying "if you want to know what the *real* policy is, just try violating it sometime, hee-hee". Of course, in the particular context of our discussion -- policies on psyching -- it must be noted that what Marv and Kojak have told us is that the real policy is rather more permissive than the published policy is. I can easily believe that the ACBL BoD, under pressure from the WBF(LC) and/or someone at the League (perhaps even a BoD member or two) who undertands and respects the law, have loosened up their official policy to avoid its being blatantly illegal, but would much prefer that the players never find out about this. 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 Jun 19 00:37:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 00:37:03 +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 AAA27048 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 00:36:56 +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 JAA78199 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:36:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0DIK600F Fri, 18 Jun 99 09:37:14 Message-ID: <9906180937.0DIK600@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 99 09:37:14 Subject: ESTABLISHMENT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I see no incongruity that an established corrected revoke still has revoke penalties. I do see incongruity between L62A and L63C. I see no incongruity within L63, it specifies the conditions for establishing a revoke, and requires that a revoke once establishes to not be corrected. The time frame covered is continuous, as in it leaves no time unaccounted for subsequent to the revoke. But, there is an incongruity with L67 which requires a defective trick to be corrected without penalty if a player at the point of detection can follow suit to the trick even though he did not play a card to the trick [and hence did not follow suit when able]. I conclude that the law provides that established revokes can be established, and then corrected, but not by a change of play as is specified under L62A but by supplying a card to a trick that a contestant did not play to. L67 provides a special case where a corrected established revoke [failure to play a card to a trick] is corrected without penalty. However, there is incongruity by applying L9 so as to rule that an action subsequent to drawing attention to an irregularity never happened. For one, how can something that never happened be penalized as suggested by the 'no player shall ' ? What is interesting is that L9B2 does not say what happens if it is violated, maybe the intent was to apply 84E. It is obvious to me that if the LC's intent was that any action violating L9B2 did not happen, the LC would have made L9B2 a little longer and used those words, but since it was their intent and they did not, it must not have been so obvious. L62 goes to length to cover the time period from the commission of a revoke and its establishment without defining establishment, but unlike L63 it fails to be continuous because of the exception of the time immediately after drawing attention and playing of a card by the offender's partner is not accounted for. Basically six things can occur in that situation 1. no play is made after calling attention [L9 followed] 2. a NO plays [either in turn or OOT] 3. offender changes their play prematurely 4. offender's partner plays to the trick [not establishing the revoke], but perhaps creating UI restrictions 5. offender's partner plays to the next trick [establishing the revoke per L63A] or [never happening per L9] or [possibly penalizable as implied by L9] 6. offender plays to the next trick [establishing the revoke per L63A] or [never happening per L9] or [possibly penalizable as asserted under L9] as happened to the Hamman team in the the Nationals or ITT several years ago when something was said like "what's going on here?" supposedly drawing attention to the revoke, the director ruled that the play was to the next trick and not a correction of the revoke. This ruling seems to be in direct contravention of the official stance of the WBFLC [Kaplan] L62A/L9B2. All these things can happen in that possibly short time after attention is drawn and the director arrives/ makes a ruling. They can as must be ruled under L9B2 'that they never happened' or they can stand subject to the applicable laws. My imagination arrives at a conclusion as to why the L9B2 interpretation exists. For a connoisseur of the cards, there is a 'beauty and art' attached with achieving the maximum potential of the cards, something that would be nice to preserve if possible. I can visualize Kaplan having such a philosophy. The correction of the revoke in the L62A instance would appear to be consistent with such a philosophy. Which brings me to another philosophy. In a competitive endeavor, is what matters most is [a] the extraction/ preservation of the beauty of the cards dealt or [b] is it a contest of what the contestants do with those cards? In this case is the issue whether the play of a contestant counts [who played in violation of L9B2] when it comes to establishing the revoke [63A] and preventing a correction [63C]; or whether it does not count at all. One view leads to the conclusion that competitive bridge is art; the other leads to the conclusion that competitive bridge is a contest, a contest that btw includes art. B>Of course, BLML has another use: if we were to convince you that you B>were wrong, Instead of wrong, how about there being a better way? Roger Pewick then you might re-consider how WBF TDs should rule. If I am B>finally convinced by this thread, then it might affect how EBU TDs rule B>in future, because I may bring it to our training weekends, although my B>word is nowhere near final at them. 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, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 19 02:22:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 02:22:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27377 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 02:22:11 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14456) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qWOVa14855; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:21:10 EDT Subject: Re: establishment 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 6/17/99 8:50:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk writes: > At WBF level, you have stated how TDs rule: fine, WBF TDs will rule > that way. If the EBU tells me to rule that way, then I shall, whatever > I think. [To be accurate, I shall rule that way unless I am working for > the EBL, or the WBF, or whoever, when I am required to follow the > dictates of whomever I am working for.] My interest is to work toward minimizing the increasing differences in our Game. Yesterday I had a long talk with an ACBL TD I regard highly who had just completed a Zonal-to-WBF qualifying tournament. Should he have used the ACBL rules? Should he have used the WBF rules? Or some NCBO rules for the locality he was working in? I feel sorry for the players who are awash in this miasma. So far I have only encountered ONE point where the entire worldwide structure of our game was at risk - .....No Spades partner?...by a defender.... and that was resolved by going different ways. I strongly resist the attitudes held by many on the sides of various oceans, -- that within our shores we'll do whatever we want. I also direct those feelings to NCBOs whose positions and defenses thereof appear to me to be arrogant and personally self-serving. WHY do you need to make a distinction between an NCBO and a Zone, much less the WBF? I want the Game to remain universal. Actions which detract from that are IMHO ultimately counterproductive to "....making bridge a better game...." I take little joy from hoping that a hall filled with bridge players from all over the world played a game enroute not too different from what is expected from them vis-a-vis the Laws when they are here. To work toward Jose Damiani's "Bridge for Peace" makes good sense to me. IMHO the BLML serves a excellent purpose in bringing to light localisms that have crept into our game; some good, some horrendous. With today's communications there is no reason why a universal game (how about soccer, or chess?) can't remain structured the same on this small planet. More importantly, however, BLML should also provide suggested solutions to these problems. Pointing things out is fine.....helping resolve them is much better. And, while I'm at it, I'm amazed at questions on BLML that are easily answered by reference to the Law Book - without the need for any interpretation. I'd think that knowing what is in that book is step one to being a TD -- even if there are with controversy, error, contradiction, or other weaknesses therein. Enough of IMHOs. All I can contribute to BLML is what I think my instructions are from WBFLC on the Laws, WBF on their Rules , and 40 years of experience in ruling this game. And yes, when I work in ACBL I apply their rules. Kojak From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 19 02:22:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 02:22:43 +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 CAA27384 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 02:22:36 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (14456) by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id eHCAa12149; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:21:09 EDT Subject: Re: Advice from on high. To: Bruce.Moore@akamail.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 6/17/99 10:51:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, moorebj@oh.verio.com writes: > If the ACBL chooses to interpret these statements in a manner against > all logic, there really is not much I can do about it (see paragraph #1 > ;-)). I can only hope that the folks making these decisions put the > Laws above a "the ways justify the means" mentality. Kojak here. There's a simple solution. Give them a better "WAYS", more explicit, universally understood, and clear. Work on a worldwide interpretation of the Laws, prepared to give up some of those personal gems zealously guarded against foreign intrusion by some. In this world? Sure. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 19 02:57:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 02:57:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27476 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 02:57:11 +1000 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Received: from Schoderb@aol.com (577) by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id pEEIa14487 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:54:58 EDT Subject: Holiday 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 Hi all, I'm off to vacation in the Florida Keys. Fishing, reading, and musing. Hope I'll be smarter when I get back on 5 July. Until then........ Hals und Beinbruch! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 19 03:54:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 03:54:52 +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 DAA27601 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 03:54:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10v2qV-000Hsi-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:54:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:48:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: establishment In-Reply-To: <$GkewaDm2Ya3Ewy1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <$GkewaDm2Ya3Ewy1@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > then it might affect how EBU TDs rule >in future, because I may bring it to our training weekends, although my >word is nowhere near final at them. > nope 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 Jun 19 07:26:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:26:39 +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 HAA28043 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:26:32 +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, 18 Jun 1999 17:24:58 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990618091138.0071df54@pop.cais.com> References: <024801beb939$713621c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990616085607.0071b524@pop.cais.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 17:22:51 -0400 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:11 AM -0400 6/18/99, Eric Landau wrote: >That's like saying that the only regulations or policies that are official >in real life come from the laws passed by Congress; articles that appear in >the Federal Register (the U.S. compendium of executive-agency documents) >are unofficial. If you believe that, try violating an executive-agency >regulation and tellin' it to da judge. One could make a pretty good argument, I think, that the entire structure of federal "administrative law" is an unconstitutional violation of the principle of separation of powers. But this isn't the place to do it. :-) 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/AwUBN2q5gb2UW3au93vOEQIJrACfVcR0429iMCQHTX14oWlX8GuzrnkAn0T2 my5TX7j6z908J9MQK8aYywPX =XCHY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 19 08:36:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA28200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:36:08 +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 IAA28194 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:36:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10v7Ej-000Pej-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 22:35:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:34:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Dummy's card not turned down MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk There is a tiny problem on RGB. It seemed obvious enough at first. It was totally mishandled at the time, so this obscured a real complication. Anyway, having posted an opinion, I am no longer sure, so I thought I would ask my good friends on BLML! At trick four dummy wins the trick with the ten of spades - but it is not turned down! At trick ten it is noticed that dummy has an extra card - whoops! ----------- Now you might consider the following: First, the defence say they misdefended because of the S10 in dummy, and could have taken another trick. Assume this is true. Second, the S10 was still in dummy at trick ten, and this may affect your ruling. Third, what is the difference if the S10 is played somewhere between tricks five and nine inclusive? Fourth, is there any difference if the S10 won trick four by being led to 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 Sat Jun 19 09:13:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA28243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:13:08 +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 JAA28238 for ; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:12:58 +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 TAA09541 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:12:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA07342 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:13:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906182313.TAA07342@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > At trick ten it is noticed that dummy has an extra card - whoops! Interesting question. First, I don't believe L67B1 applies. Offender did play a card at trick 4; it is just that the played card wasn't properly turned down. This looks like a violation of L42A3 and L65A. Since neither of these specifies a penalty for violation, it seems we are sent to L12A1. > Third, what is the difference if the S10 is played somewhere between > tricks five and nine inclusive? You mean played _again_? I think still L12A1. In all cases, adjust per L12C2, assuming the S10 had been turned over after trick 4 as required. ------ Now I've looked at David's answer in RGB. Oh well, we disagree again. Nothing surprising about that. :-) ------ In the actual case, the TD was playing and had not yet come to this board. David suggests the TD assign himself avg and the opponents avg+ when it comes time for him to play the board. I assume David wouldn't object to having a substitute play the board (if a suitable person is available) or (in the unlikely case the movement allows) changing the board or player progression so the TD never has to play the board at all. But if, as is likely, those options are not available, why avg/avg+? I can see where the TD might be uncomfortable giving himself avg+, but it is what L12C1 seems to say. Surely the TD cannot be said to be at fault for needing to make a ruling. Comments, anyone? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 20 00:17:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA02020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:17:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from garfield.ecats.co.uk (garfield.ecats.co.uk [194.205.153.130]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA02015 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:16:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge (212.56.135.66 [212.56.135.66]) by garfield.ecats.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id MS3QW6SB; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 15:18:41 +0100 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 19 Jun 1999 16:18:54 +0200 Message-ID: <01BEBA6F.6CBAA4E0.mark@ecats.co.uk> From: Mark Newton Reply-To: "mark@ecats.co.uk" To: "'MSDBridge@aol.com'" Cc: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , "'gester@globalnet.co.uk'" , "'Hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 16:18:52 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 44 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To Mike Swanson You say : " A defender Enquirer of partner when he fails to follow to Clubs, thereby preventing the revoke but invoking Law 63B. The defender had attempted to ruff (Spades are trumps), but now has to follow suit and does not win the trick nor does he win a trick subsequently with any of his Clubs. He does, however, win a trick subsequently with his trump and his side does win several more tricks also subsequently. What is the ruling?" In the further text of your message you point to the inequity if the offending side achieves a better score as a consequence of the illegal enquiry. Reply:- This law has lost some of its shape since it was amended in 1997. There has been some confusion and it is important to read Law 63B with some care. Today, Saturday, June 19,1999, in Malta, I have spent some time in conference with Ton Kooijman on the subject and we have reached an agreement which he has authorized me to publish as an interim ruling of the WBF Laws Committee. (We are persuaded it is unlikely to be changed when the WBFLC next convenes but it is open to the Committee to review the ruling at that time.) The ruling is that, whilst a legal card is to be substituted for the revoke card, in applying the penalty from Law 64 the Director must disregard the substitution of a legal card and consider the revoke trick with the revoke card established. If that card wins the trick then Law 64A1 applies. If the Director is of the opinion that a subsequent card would then win a trick for the offending side there is a two trick penalty. But if the revoke card would not win the trick Law 64A2 applies and in determining the penalty the Director is to form his opinion as to whether the offending player would subsequently win a trick with a card that could have been played legally to the revoke trick. The number of tricks to be transferred is limited to tricks won on and after the revoke trick when the hand is played with the legal card substituted. Grattan Endicott Secretary, WBF Laws Committee, 19 June, 1999. [p.s. as an expression solely of personal opinion my view is that the 1987 law was simpler, cleaner, and to be desired. I can't think why 'x' had to disturb it and I would return to it.] From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 20 08:22:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 08:22:21 +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 IAA02970 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 08:22:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip15.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.15]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990619222209.SUEX29771.fep2@ip15.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:22:09 +0200 From: jesper@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 00:22:02 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <37701787.5939931@post12.tele.dk> References: <199906182313.TAA07342@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906182313.TAA07342@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA02971 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:13:03 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >In the actual case, the TD was playing and had not yet come to this >board. David suggests the TD assign himself avg and the opponents avg+ >when it comes time for him to play the board. I assume David wouldn't >object to having a substitute play the board (if a suitable person is >available) or (in the unlikely case the movement allows) changing the >board or player progression so the TD never has to play the board at >all. But if, as is likely, those options are not available, why >avg/avg+? > >I can see where the TD might be uncomfortable giving himself avg+, but >it is what L12C1 seems to say. Surely the TD cannot be said to be at >fault for needing to make a ruling. Comments, anyone? I give myself avg+ in those situations. I do not see how the TD is at fault. If being a playing TD means that it is to be considered my fault that there is no non-playing TD, then I would not accept the job of playing TD. The SO may be considered at fault for not spending the money on a non-playing TD, but even if the SO is personified in the TD, it is not that person as a player who is at fault. Besides, using a playing TD is not a fault - it is specifically allowed by L80. It is bad enough for a playing TD to lose the chance to play a board (and possibly also get a bad result on the board he was playing when he was called). But to also consider him "at fault" for doing his job as a TD is quite unreasonable (particularly to the TD's partner). In practice, when I've given a ruling as playing TD and has seen some (or all) of the cards, I try to forget it, and I try not to remember the board number. Sometimes I'm lucky and realize at the end of the evening that I played that board without recognizing it. If I do realize that the board I'm playing or about to play is the one I've ruled on, I tell the opponents so. I tell them that I will try to play the board, but that if I get into a situation where I am not quite certain that I can choose my action without being influenced by my advance knowledge of the board, I will stop the play and award A+/A+. Of course the other possibilities of L16B can also be relevant, particularly letting my partner play the hand. This works quite well in practice - all those hands on which the important or difficult decisions are not mine can be played normally. This is not quite perfect: * It requires a TD who is able to recognize a possible need to stop the play; * It requires the players to trust the TD to recognize such a need; * Other players at the table may be able to deduce something about the TD's hand from the fact that he plays on. But events where such considerations are more important than playing the boards should have a non-playing TD. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 00:08:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:08:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04125 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:07:58 +1000 (EST) 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 QAA17253; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:07:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA26972; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:07:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:07:20 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Here is the recap sheet for the one round arrow switch: > > Boards > Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total %age > 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 112 100.00 > 2 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 > 3 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 > 4 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 > 5 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 52 46.43 > 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 52 46.43 > 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 52 46.43 > 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 48 42.86 > > 11 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 56 50.00 > 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 56 50.00 > 13 6 8 8 8 8 8 0 6 52 46.43 > 14-18 5x8 + 2x6 + 1x0 52 46.43 > Check Total: 1x112 + 2x56 + 12x52 + 1x48 = 896 The math is correct BUT the result also depends on the movement that has been used. Suppose we don't know in advance which pair are the experts and we give them pair #2. Now the result becomes (because pair #2 doesn't share a board with another NS pair in the last round). Pair 1, 3-8 : 50 (6 MP on the 7 boards they play in the same direction as #2, 8 on the last board). 2 : 112 11-12, 14-18 : 54 (6*8 when they play in the opposite direction, 6 on the arrow switched board, 0 when they play #2) 13 : 56 (7*8) Since we don't know in advance which pair is the strongest, I don't think that you can use a metric where the result depends on random things like the pair numbers assigned to the pairs. > Consider the one round arrow switch: It isn't quite perfect but it's > darned close. Yes, but you have to define "darned close" better. Suppose I'm considering 2 movements for an event, do this calculation and end up with scores that fluctuate around average a bit, which one should I select? > NB If it worked perfectly all pairs (except Pair 1) would > score an impossible fractional 52 plus a bit mps. No, why? Pairs 2-8 had different scores than pairs 11-18. The score of pairs 2-8 was beaten by one other pair on 7 out of 8 boards, they only once had a better result than any of the pairs in their direction. Pairs 11-18 did exactly the opposite. Thus, I'd expect that pairs 11-18 score a little bit more than pairs 2-8. Anyway, with this movement, I still want to sit EW: my score is compared twice to the experts (once when they arrow switch, once when we play against them) as opposed to the NS pairs who compare 8 times with the experts. In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 03:11:59 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:11:59 +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 DAA06854 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:11:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10vl87-000KU5-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:11:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 18:10:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> Here is the recap sheet for the one round arrow switch: >> >> Boards >> Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total %age >> 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 112 100.00 >> 2 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 >> 3 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 >> 4 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 >> 5 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 52 46.43 >> 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 52 46.43 >> 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 52 46.43 >> 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 48 42.86 >> >> 11 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 56 50.00 >> 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 56 50.00 >> 13 6 8 8 8 8 8 0 6 52 46.43 >> 14-18 5x8 + 2x6 + 1x0 52 46.43 >> Check Total: 1x112 + 2x56 + 12x52 + 1x48 = 896 > >The math is correct BUT the result also depends on the movement that has >been used. Suppose we don't know in advance which pair are the experts >and we give them pair #2. Now the result becomes (because pair #2 doesn't >share a board with another NS pair in the last round). > >Pair > 1, 3-8 : 50 (6 MP on the 7 boards they play in the same direction > as #2, 8 on the last board). > 2 : 112 >11-12, 14-18 : 54 (6*8 when they play in the opposite direction, 6 on > the arrow switched board, 0 when they play #2) >13 : 56 (7*8) > >Since we don't know in advance which pair is the strongest, I don't think >that you can use a metric where the result depends on random things like >the pair numbers assigned to the pairs. > > >> Consider the one round arrow switch: It isn't quite perfect but it's >> darned close. > >Yes, but you have to define "darned close" better. Suppose I'm >considering 2 movements for an event, do this calculation and end up with >scores that fluctuate around average a bit, which one should I select? > > >> NB If it worked perfectly all pairs (except Pair 1) would >> score an impossible fractional 52 plus a bit mps. > >No, why? Pairs 2-8 had different scores than pairs 11-18. The score of >pairs 2-8 was beaten by one other pair on 7 out of 8 boards, they only >once had a better result than any of the pairs in their direction. Pairs >11-18 did exactly the opposite. Thus, I'd expect that pairs 11-18 score a >little bit more than pairs 2-8. yep correct. I don't mind which pair is "world expert". What it shows is the effect of this particular pair's scores on the rest of the field. And it doesn't matter if they're pair 2, it's just a different pair will get the benefit of not competing against them. (I comment that a double weave is better, and it also helps to arrow switch different boards on different rounds). Given match points are (fouled boards excepted) integer (or halves for the ACBL) you cannot achieve perfect balance, but you can achieve the best possible balance doing these two things, with a 1/8 switch.. > > >Anyway, with this movement, I still want to sit EW: my score is compared >twice to the experts (once when they arrow switch, once when we play >against them) as opposed to the NS pairs who compare 8 times with the you mean 6 times >experts. And of course the experts will give you a bottom when you play them (You have *ignored* this point) [Set arm waving on] With a 1/8 switch, 1/4 of the competition comes from the other line and 3/4 of the competition comes from your line, which means that, nett, half of the available competition (0.75-0.25 = 0.5 !) comes from your line, and by implication the other half comes from the other line. [Set arm waving off] > >In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times >with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare >scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be >accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. No! No! No! Write out the travellers and recap it. You are ignoring the effect of playing against a pair. That is why the 1/4 arrow switch is wrong. IMO playing against a pair is approximately half the weight of comparing against a pair across the whole movement. This is the *fundamental* flaw in their reasoning. (I'll defend this position in any jurisdiction on this point btw) In your movement I want to sit in the same line as the strongest pair and as far away from them as possible. Their arrow switches will help me. I might get as much as 2% out of it if you foul it up completely. Try recapping 3 rounds of switch in a 9 table movement to see what I mean :)) It's correct to use 1/4 switch in an all-play-all where you *can* ignore the effect of playing against each pair, but not when you only play half the pairs. -- 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 Jun 21 03:13:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA06874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:13:32 +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 DAA06868 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:13:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost by u2.farm.idt.net (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id NAA06403 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 13:13:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 13:13:15 -0400 (EDT) From: richard lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times > with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare > scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be > accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. > The "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" (1984 Edition) has a table of "best possible" arrow switches as computed by Lawrence Rosler. It asserts "The following tables give as close to a perfect balance of comparisons as can be obtained." It's under the heading "Scrambled Mitchell Movement." I have made no attempt to verify the claim. -- Richard Lighton (lighton@idt.net) Wood-Ridge NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 04:59:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA07061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 04:59:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA07056 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 04:59:23 +1000 (EST) 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 UAA04361; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 20:58:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by office.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA06451; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 20:58:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: office.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 20:58:43 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > I wrote; > >In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times > >with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare > >scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be > >accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. > > No! No! No! Write out the travellers and recap it. You are ignoring the > effect of playing against a pair. That is why the 1/4 arrow switch is > wrong. IMO playing against a pair is approximately half the weight of > comparing against a pair across the whole movement. This is the > *fundamental* flaw in their reasoning. (I'll defend this position in any > jurisdiction on this point btw) I see, so what you essentially say is that having to play against a pair, should be compensated by having to compare less against this pair. This makes sense. However, it does create at least 1 new problem: suppose we have a movement where not all EW pairs play against all NS pairs. (Say an 7-round Mitchell with 1 appendix table). If NS #1 never meet EW #8, then EW #8 should make a few more arrow switches than EW #1-7. I'm not sure how to accomplish this. And of course you still have to define a metric to calculate the unbalance of a movement. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 07:53:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA07291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:53:16 +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 HAA07285 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:53:09 +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 QAA13940 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 16:53:00 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0NX5D00S Sun, 20 Jun 99 17:01:39 Message-ID: <9906201701.0NX5D00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 20 Jun 99 17:01:39 Subject: REVISED (AMENDED) MESSAGE To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Why correct an established revoke in the first place? By playing a hand twice- once after correction and then by using the imagination- a strain is placed on the mind-reading skills of the director. But since the imaginary instance would be the one that governed it seems that leaving the established revoke alone would result in a score based on fact instead of imagination. Roger Pewick >To Mike Swanson >You say : " A defender Enquirer of partner when he fails to follow to >Clubs, thereby preventing the revoke but invoking Law 63B. The defender >had attempted to ruff (Spades are trumps), but now has to follow suit >and does not win the trick nor does he win a trick subsequently with >any of his Clubs. >He does, however, win a trick subsequently with his trump and his side >does win several more tricks also subsequently. What is the ruling?" >In the further text of your message you point to the inequity if the >offending side achieves a better score as a consequence of the illegal >enquiry. >Reply:- >This law has lost some of its shape since it was amended in 1997. There >has been some confusion and it is important to read Law 63B with some >care. Today, Saturday, June 19,1999, in Malta, I have spent some time >in conference with Ton Kooijman on the subject and we have reached an >agreement which he has authorized me to publish as an interim ruling of >the WBF Laws Committee. (We are persuaded it is unlikely to be changed >when the WBFLC next convenes but it is open to the Committee to review >the ruling at that time.) >The ruling is that, whilst a legal card is to be substituted for the >revoke card, in >applying the penalty from Law 64 the Director must disregard the >substitution of a legal card and consider the revoke trick with the >revoke card established. >If that card wins the trick then Law 64A1 applies. If the Director is of >the opinion >that a subsequent card would then win a trick for the offending side >there is a >two trick penalty. But if the revoke card would not win the trick Law >64A2 applies and in determining the penalty the Director is to form his >opinion as to >whether the offending player would subsequently win a trick with a card >that could have been played legally to the revoke trick. The number of >tricks to be transferred is limited to tricks won on and after the >revoke trick when the hand >is played with the legal card substituted. >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee, >19 June, 1999. >[p.s. as an expression solely of personal opinion my view is that the >1987 law was simpler, cleaner, and to be desired. I can't think why 'x' >had to disturb it >and I would return to it.] > Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 09:56:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA07450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:56:50 +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 JAA07445 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:56:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA26433; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 20:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:56:53 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <035301beb9c5$c82f6e00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:58 PM 6/18/99 -0700, you wrote: >Danny Kleinman's solution to this problem may suit you better than >mine, although it violates the ACBL regulation:: > >The initial actors *can* change system in accordance with defenses >encountered. Defenses can then be altered, whereupon the offense >must declare which poison they prefer, e.g., weak overcalls vs >penalty doubles or sound overcalls vs negative doubles. > >Does this fly? >From a personal perspective, I would probably prefer that to what we've got, but it's tangential to the concern I've been trying to voice. I don't find the ACBL's ban on changing system as a function of the opponents' systemic defenses irrational or indefensible. What I've been arguing for is the need for a relatively conservative interpretation of what constititues "system" in this context, versus judgment or style. When system meets system, order can prevail to "break ties", but when judgment or style meet system, the former must be allowed to function. Your example provides a fine illustration of what I'm concerned about. In my various SA partnerships, I tend to use one of two overcalling styles. One of these is sound overcalls (near-openers), with new suits forcing, cue bids promising support, etc. The other is light overcalls (AKxxx and out) with new suits not forcing, cue bids on a variety of strong hand types, etc. I must choose one or the other style for the entire session and stick to it. I may not play the former against penalty doublers and the latter against negative doublers. I have no problem with that. But whichever I am playing this session, I will exercise my judgment by making those overcalls that feel right to me given my methods. This might well mean that on average I will hold sounder hands against the penalty doublers than against the negative doublers. This is what judgment is all about. Then people say that once my partner catches on to how I will tend to make those judgment calls, I have an implicit agreement, and an implicit agreement (e.g. weaker overcalls against negative doublers than against penalty doublers) is as much an agreement as an explicit agreement (e.g. either of my potential agreements about overcall style), thus to as much an extent systemic, and therefore I am now varying my system in response to my opponent's defenses, which I may not do. I'm not sure where this logic crosses the line over to irrational and indefensible, but at some point it does, and I suspect it's the way the ACBL defines and deals with implicit agreements. 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 Jun 21 10:06:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:06:39 +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 KAA07474 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:06:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([62.172.86.2]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5859 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:06:00 +0100 Message-ID: <005101bebb7a$2ed3f6c0$46758cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Book on movements Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:18:53 +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 Bruce wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> Speaking of movements, ISTR a (600 page?) book on same by some Scandinavian >> folks, translated into English by (I think) Barry Rigal, recently appeared >> in the Baron-Barclay catalog. Anyone know if that's worth getting? :-) >> >Books is called "Movements a fair approach" by Hallen, Hanner Jannersten >and trans by Rigal. Long but lots of options for director to use with >explanations of why and how it works. Mildly expensive but good addition >to library of person interested in movements. > >Bruce ######### I have personally read this book from cover to cover at least four times and it is absolutely fascinating for anybody who is seriously interested in bridge movements or the mathematics that lies behind them. However, the amount of arrow-switching in the single winner Mitchell movements is controversial, at least in EBUland, where it is significantly at variance with the official EBU movement manual edited by the late John Manning. Indeed, a substantial amount of my research into bridge movements over the last few years has been spent trying to resolve the differences between these two books. I have just recently finished work on arrow-switches for all-play-all and incomplete movements as well as multi-section and multi-session events. I will be arranging a seminar on this topic in the near future in London and anyone who would like to attend is welcome. ############ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 10:06:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:06:43 +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 KAA07479 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:06:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([62.172.86.2]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAC5859 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:06:05 +0100 Message-ID: <005301bebb7a$319364e0$46758cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Book on movements Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:07:30 +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 Henk wrote: -SNIP >And of course you still have to define a metric to calculate the unbalance >of a movement. > ######### I did this about two years ago. Basically, you calculate the ideal amount of competition between each pair in a movement, calculate the actual amount of competition and then calculate the standard deviation of the difference, ie. the competition error. The index also required some special rules to handle exceptions such as phantom pairs and rovers. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 10:06:44 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:06:44 +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 KAA07475 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:06:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([62.172.86.2]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAB5859 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:06:02 +0100 Message-ID: <005201bebb7a$2fefc700$46758cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Book on movements Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:01:56 +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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John wrote: Subject: Re: Book on movements >In article , >"Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >>On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>> Here is the recap sheet for the one round arrow switch: >>> >>> Boards >>> Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total %age >>> 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 112 100.00 >>> 2 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 >>> 3 6 8 6 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 >>> 4 6 6 8 6 6 6 6 8 52 46.43 >>> 5 6 6 6 6 8 6 6 8 52 46.43 >>> 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 8 52 46.43 >>> 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 52 46.43 >>> 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 48 42.86 >>> >>> 11 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 56 50.00 >>> 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 56 50.00 >>> 13 6 8 8 8 8 8 0 6 52 46.43 >>> 14-18 5x8 + 2x6 + 1x0 52 46.43 >>> Check Total: 1x112 + 2x56 + 12x52 + 1x48 = 896 >> >>The math is correct BUT the result also depends on the movement that has >>been used. Suppose we don't know in advance which pair are the experts >>and we give them pair #2. Now the result becomes (because pair #2 doesn't >>share a board with another NS pair in the last round). ######## No one claims that arrow-switching is perfect but for single-session, single-section, complete movements, ie. ones where everybody plays all of the boards, it can be shown mathematically that switching slightly greater than 1/8 th of the boards produces the lowest spread of competition error as measured by standard deviation. ########### >> >>Pair >> 1, 3-8 : 50 (6 MP on the 7 boards they play in the same direction >> as #2, 8 on the last board). >> 2 : 112 >>11-12, 14-18 : 54 (6*8 when they play in the opposite direction, 6 on >> the arrow switched board, 0 when they play #2) >>13 : 56 (7*8) >> >>Since we don't know in advance which pair is the strongest, I don't think >>that you can use a metric where the result depends on random things like >>the pair numbers assigned to the pairs. ########## Examples such as John's above are really only useful for demonstrating what is going on in a simple way. Serious movement quality analysis can only be done by calculating all of the competitive couplings between all pairs of pairs within the movement and, from that, the standard deviation. ######### >> >> >>> Consider the one round arrow switch: It isn't quite perfect but it's >>> darned close. >> >>Yes, but you have to define "darned close" better. Suppose I'm >>considering 2 movements for an event, do this calculation and end up with >>scores that fluctuate around average a bit, which one should I select? ######## All other practical factors being equal, you should chose the movement with the lowest standard deviation for competitive error. ########## >> >> >>> NB If it worked perfectly all pairs (except Pair 1) would >>> score an impossible fractional 52 plus a bit mps. >> >>No, why? Pairs 2-8 had different scores than pairs 11-18. The score of >>pairs 2-8 was beaten by one other pair on 7 out of 8 boards, they only >>once had a better result than any of the pairs in their direction. Pairs >>11-18 did exactly the opposite. Thus, I'd expect that pairs 11-18 score a >>little bit more than pairs 2-8. > >yep correct. I don't mind which pair is "world expert". What it shows is >the effect of this particular pair's scores on the rest of the field. >And it doesn't matter if they're pair 2, it's just a different pair will >get the benefit of not competing against them. (I comment that a double >weave is better, and it also helps to arrow switch different boards on >different rounds). Given match points are (fouled boards excepted) >integer (or halves for the ACBL) you cannot achieve perfect balance, but >you can achieve the best possible balance doing these two things, with a >1/8 switch.. >> >> >>Anyway, with this movement, I still want to sit EW: my score is compared >>twice to the experts (once when they arrow switch, once when we play >>against them) as opposed to the NS pairs who compare 8 times with the > you mean 6 times >>experts. > >And of course the experts will give you a bottom when you play them (You >have *ignored* this point) > >[Set arm waving on] > >With a 1/8 switch, 1/4 of the competition comes from the other line and >3/4 of the competition comes from your line, which means that, nett, >half of the available competition (0.75-0.25 = 0.5 !) comes from your >line, and by implication the other half comes from the other line. > >[Set arm waving off] > > >> >>In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times >>with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare >>scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be >>accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. > >No! No! No! Write out the travellers and recap it. You are ignoring the >effect of playing against a pair. That is why the 1/4 arrow switch is >wrong. IMO playing against a pair is approximately half the weight of >comparing against a pair across the whole movement. This is the >*fundamental* flaw in their reasoning. (I'll defend this position in any >jurisdiction on this point btw) ######### If a board is played n times in total then the amount of competition that you have on it with your direct opponents at the table is n-1 matchpoints whilst you have 1 matchpoint of competition with every indirect opponent to whom you are compared. Thus, if the movement is complete, then the "weight" of playing against a pair as opposed to comparing against them across the whole movement is given by (n-1)/n which is pretty close to 1. ####### > >In your movement I want to sit in the same line as the strongest pair >and as far away from them as possible. Their arrow switches will help >me. I might get as much as 2% out of it if you foul it up completely. >Try recapping 3 rounds of switch in a 9 table movement to see what I >mean :)) > >It's correct to use 1/4 switch in an all-play-all where you *can* ignore >the effect of playing against each pair, but not when you only play half >the pairs. ######## It is *not* correct to arrow-switch 1/4 of the boards in an all-play-all event. The correct number of switches is calculated by equalising N/S and E/W comparisons as far as possible because direct competition can now be ignored. The formulae for the comparison error is: Comparison error = S(T-A)(S(T-A)-1)/2+SA(SA-1)/2 -TS(TS-1)/4 where S=number of sections T=number of tables per section (sections are assumed to be of equal size) A=number of arrow-switched rounds (assumes complete movement) The correct number of rounds to switch is that which minimises the comparison error and, for a complete movement, the optimum value for A will lie between T/8 and T/2. Thus, the limiting case for an infinite number of sections is to switch 1/2 of the boards. In practice, you only need have 4 8-table sections, 2 9-table sections or 6 12-table sections before switching 1/2 of the rounds becomes optimum. The situation with incomplete movements is more complex and I will be covering this in my next movement seminar (see previous posting). ############# From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 10:14:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:14:23 +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 KAA07521 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:14:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.82.218]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA5BD6 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:13:47 +0100 Message-ID: <007001bebb7b$45224d40$46758cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Book on movements Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:15:28 +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 John also wrote: BIG SNIP >Consider the one round arrow switch: >It isn't quite perfect but it's darned close. The losers are those who >share with the "experts" and the gainers those who switch the same board >as the experts but play in the opposite direction. (Board 8 is switched >twice as it's shared, and board 4 sits out the last round) ####### There is no reason whatsoever why the sharing tables should not arrow-switch in different rounds and overcome this problem. ######### From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 10:24:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:24:29 +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 KAA07557 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:24:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10vrse-000Igc-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:24:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:19:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" writes >On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> I wrote; > >> >In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times >> >with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare >> >scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be >> >accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. >> >> No! No! No! Write out the travellers and recap it. You are ignoring the >> effect of playing against a pair. That is why the 1/4 arrow switch is >> wrong. IMO playing against a pair is approximately half the weight of >> comparing against a pair across the whole movement. This is the >> *fundamental* flaw in their reasoning. (I'll defend this position in any >> jurisdiction on this point btw) > >I see, so what you essentially say is that having to play against a pair, >should be compensated by having to compare less against this pair. This >makes sense. Yep, exactly so! and I think playing against a pair carries _about_ half the weight of comparing against a pair across the movement (see above). > >However, it does create at least 1 new problem: suppose we have a movement >where not all EW pairs play against all NS pairs. (Say an 7-round >Mitchell with 1 appendix table). If NS #1 never meet EW #8, then EW #8 >should make a few more arrow switches than EW #1-7. I'm not sure how to >accomplish this. This is where the whole thing starts to come apart :)) All we can say is that arrow-switching [slightly more than] one eigthth of the rounds [NB Rounds, not boards] is best and the late John Manning (who did a lot more work on this than I have) also stated that all pairs must play at least 80% of the boards, otherwise the arrow switch was meaningless and a 2-winner movement should be used. Hence, if one is playing a 12 round 2-board share and relay with 12 tables then one should arrow-switch 3 boards. I accomplish this by arrow switching [slightly more than] half the tables on the penultimate round and all the tables on the last round. I doesn't seem to make much technical difference which tables do the arrow switch so I used to make it the odd numbered ones, or the first six, or the prime numbered ones (!) depending how I felt. There is no doubt in my mind the *best* movement would be a double weave Mitchell, with 8/12 tables arrow switching one particular board on each of the last three rounds. There is, of course, absolutely no chance that the players would get it right, hence one chooses something that will work and is an adequate compromise. John Manning used computer programs to check his suggested arrow switches, which I don't have the patience to do, but I am *totally* convinced by his arguments. 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 Jun 21 10:24:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:24:37 +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 KAA07563 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:24:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10vrse-000Kd1-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:24:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:22:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , richard lighton writes > >On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >> >> In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times >> with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare >> scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be >> accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. >> >The "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" (1984 Edition) has a table >of "best possible" arrow switches as computed by Lawrence Rosler. >It asserts "The following tables give as close to a perfect >balance of comparisons as can be obtained." > I don't have a copy. If it recommends about 1/8 of the rounds then I would tend to agree. If it recommends about 1/4 or 1/3 of the rounds then I would vehemently oppose it. It depends simply on whether Lawrence recognised the _weight_ of playing a pair as opposed to comparing with them. >It's under the heading "Scrambled Mitchell Movement." I have made >no attempt to verify the claim. > This will be the right place for it IMO. -- 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 Jun 21 10:52:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA07643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:52:45 +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 KAA07638 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:52:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10vsK1-000Fc9-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 00:52:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:50:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <005101bebb7a$2ed3f6c0$46758cd4@cmartin> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <005101bebb7a$2ed3f6c0$46758cd4@cmartin>, David Martin writes > > >I have just recently finished work on arrow-switches for all-play-all and >incomplete movements as well as multi-section and multi-session events. I >will be arranging a seminar on this topic in the near future in London and >anyone who would like to attend is welcome. ############ > Count me in, I still have a lot to learn. 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 Jun 21 11:22:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:22:04 +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 LAA07710 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:21:57 +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 SAA01120 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004301bebb84$69cd6c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: Book on movements Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 18:18:57 -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 Richard Lighton wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > > > In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times > > with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare > > scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be > > accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. > > > The "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" (1984 Edition) has a table > of "best possible" arrow switches as computed by Lawrence Rosler. > It asserts "The following tables give as close to a perfect > balance of comparisons as can be obtained." > > It's under the heading "Scrambled Mitchell Movement." I have made > no attempt to verify the claim. > The 1994 edition replaces Rosler's arrow switches with those recommended by Olaf Hammer, "using computer analysis." The switches shown typically involve 1/3 of the rounds. It adds a note: Frequent arrow-switching is a controversial matter. A mathematical paper by Dr. Ross Moore of Sydney, Australia, asserts that "Too many arrow switches spoil the balance." I would bet that Dr. Moore would agree with John Probst's "1/8" recommendation. A minor point: Where boards are not square, as in the U. S., it might be better to switch just one board (the last to be played) per round. This is slightly better in theory than switching two or three boards on one round, and would give a TD ample time to check that all tables have complied with the switch. When all the boards of a round are to be switched, the TD has to run around making sure that all tables have complied before hands have been removed from the first board. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 11:31:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:31:42 +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 LAA07735 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:31:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10vsd9-000GbK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:12:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:10:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Director's Bulletin MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I put the two articles called Appeals Committee from this publication on my Lawspage every quarter. Well, that's the theory! In fact, I have been getting further and further behind, and The November articles were still up yesterday. In an effort to catch up, I have now put up both the February and the May articles, so they are there now. Very interesting, and well worth a read. -- 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 Jun 21 11:43:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA07781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:43:28 +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 LAA07775 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:43:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10vt76-000Hul-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 01:43:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 02:33:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <005201bebb7a$2fefc700$46758cd4@cmartin> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <005201bebb7a$2fefc700$46758cd4@cmartin>, David Martin writes > >######### If a board is played n times in total then the amount of >competition that you have on it with your direct opponents at the table is >n-1 matchpoints whilst you have 1 matchpoint of competition with every >indirect opponent to whom you are compared. Thus, if the movement is >complete, then the "weight" of playing against a pair as opposed to >comparing against them across the whole movement is given by (n-1)/n which >is pretty close to 1. ####### this I'm not sure of because you are taking (in my 8 round example) only six minus two comparisons with your own line. ... and the nett four comparisons is what balances against playing a pair. I know it's an arm waving argument, and don't I just know I shall get burnt here. :)) (Sigh. David *always* shoots me down in flames where movements are concerned. We frequently discuss them and it is he who germinated my interest.) > >> >>It's correct to use 1/4 switch in an all-play-all where you *can* ignore >>the effect of playing against each pair, but not when you only play half >>the pairs. Sorry, I was sloppy. With a five table Howell and a nine table Mitchell where you play 3 sessions, each line playing once in the Howell and twice in the Mitchell, then it looks to me as though slightly more than one quarter of the rounds (but less than 1/3) should be switched. But that is why I'm coming on your next seminar :)) 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 Jun 21 12:02:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:02:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@prefetch-10bt.san.rr.com [204.210.2.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07862 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:02:09 +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 TAA07620 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008001bebb8a$08f7efa0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: Book on movements Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 18:55:39 -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 I wrote: > > A minor point: Where boards are not square, as in the U. S., it > might be better to switch just one board (the last to be played) per > round. This is slightly better in theory than switching two or three > boards on one round, and would give a TD ample time to check that > all tables have complied with the switch. When all the boards of a > round are to be switched, the TD has to run around making sure that > all tables have complied before hands have been removed from the > first board. > "Last to be played" can't be right. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 12:12:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA07898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from prefetch-atm.san.rr.com (root@prefetch-10bt.san.rr.com [204.210.2.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07893 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:12:18 +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 TAA10132 for ; Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008701bebb8b$70cbb840$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Book on movements Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 19:07:00 -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 From: John (MadDog) Probst > richard lighton writes > > > >On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > >> > >> In an 8 board, 8 round movement, the score of a pair is compared 56 times > >> with those of other pairs. With 15 other pairs, they should compare > >> scores with each of those pairs 56/15=3.7 times. This can only be > >> accomplished with more arrow switches throughout the movement. > >> > >The "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" (1984 Edition) has a table > >of "best possible" arrow switches as computed by Lawrence Rosler. > >It asserts "The following tables give as close to a perfect > >balance of comparisons as can be obtained." > > > I don't have a copy. If it recommends about 1/8 of the rounds then I > would tend to agree. If it recommends about 1/4 or 1/3 of the rounds > then I would vehemently oppose it. It depends simply on whether Lawrence > recognised the _weight_ of playing a pair as opposed to comparing with > them. > Dr. Lawrence Rosler's recommended arrow switches are included in Alex Groner's *Duplicate Bridge Direction*, 1993 edition: Rounds vs arrow direction: Tables Arrow North Arrow East 9 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 3, 5, 6, 7 10 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 2, 3, 6 11 1, 2, 4, 10 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 12 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 3, 5, 9, 10, 11 13 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 4, 7, 8 10, 11, 12, 13 14 1, 3, 9, 13 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 Obviously he did not consider the "head-to-head" effects. Mr. Groner adds, "In club games it is permissible to have a single arrow switch near the middle of the game." Not good advice, if he means switching the arrow permanently for the rest of the game, as was once custormary in these parts (Western U. S.) Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 20:20:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:20:59 +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 UAA08733 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10w1Bv-000F2m-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:20:40 +0000 Message-ID: <6cJjQsA5bab3Ew6S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:44:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <035301beb9c5$c82f6e00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >But whichever I am playing this session, I will exercise my judgment by >making those overcalls that feel right to me given my methods. This might >well mean that on average I will hold sounder hands against the penalty >doublers than against the negative doublers. This is what judgment is all >about. > >Then people say that once my partner catches on to how I will tend to make >those judgment calls, I have an implicit agreement, and an implicit >agreement (e.g. weaker overcalls against negative doublers than against >penalty doublers) is as much an agreement as an explicit agreement (e.g. >either of my potential agreements about overcall style), thus to as much an >extent systemic, and therefore I am now varying my system in response to my >opponent's defenses, which I may not do. I would expect my partner to exercise his judgement to do his best for the partnership taking all relevant factors into account. Is that an illegal agreement across the pond? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 21:37:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:37:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA08841 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:37:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10w2OC-0000Hn-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:37:26 +0000 Message-ID: <$nbS+0AxYhb3EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:38:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Book on movements References: <004301bebb84$69cd6c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004301bebb84$69cd6c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >A minor point: Where boards are not square, as in the U. S., it >might be better to switch just one board (the last to be played) per >round. This is slightly better in theory than switching two or three >boards on one round, and would give a TD ample time to check that >all tables have complied with the switch. When all the boards of a >round are to be switched, the TD has to run around making sure that >all tables have complied before hands have been removed from the >first board. I am not entirely sure that I agree with the "has to run around" bit. Is it entirely necessary to check that your instructions are being followed? -- 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 Jun 21 21:37:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:37:44 +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 VAA08840 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 21:37:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10w2O6-0000Gu-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:37:19 +0000 Message-ID: <4XqTi4A2chb3Ewrw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:43:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > There is a tiny problem on RGB. It seemed obvious enough at first. >It was totally mishandled at the time, so this obscured a real >complication. > > Anyway, having posted an opinion, I am no longer sure, so I thought I >would ask my good friends on BLML! > > At trick four dummy wins the trick with the ten of spades - but it is >not turned down! > > At trick ten it is noticed that dummy has an extra card - whoops! > > ----------- > > Now you might consider the following: > > First, the defence say they misdefended because of the S10 in dummy, >and could have taken another trick. Assume this is true. > > Second, the S10 was still in dummy at trick ten, and this may affect >your ruling. > > Third, what is the difference if the S10 is played somewhere between >tricks five and nine inclusive? > > Fourth, is there any difference if the S10 won trick four by being led >to it? > Well, Steve tried to hijack the thread! Perhaps there are too many people in Malta at the moment! This is your moment: you have been reading BLML for some time, perhaps not posting much [or ever]. It looks as though several of the major contributors are away. You have a Law book, and here is David, not sure of the answer to a problem. Laws 12, 44, 67 might be relevant. I am asking *YOU* for an opinion. And your view is ...? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 22:14:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:14:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA08977 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:14:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA03724; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:14:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26915; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:14:02 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:14:02 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <$nbS+0AxYhb3EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >A minor point: Where boards are not square, as in the U. S., What does the shape of a board have to do with arrow switching? > >it > >might be better to switch just one board (the last to be played) per > >round. This is slightly better in theory than switching two or three > >boards on one round, and would give a TD ample time to check that > >all tables have complied with the switch. But don't you want different tables to arrow switch on different boards? > Is it entirely necessary to check that your instructions are being > followed? Please come and direct at my club sometime :-) If you don't check things at least 5 times there, then you can be sure that something will go wrong. For example, we usually play in 2 sections with duplicated boards, A uses blue boards, travellers, guide cards, table numbers, etc, B has everything in yellow. This has been the case for more than 2 years and people still manage to put blue travellers in yellow boards and things like that (and to make things even more complicated, then go and change them after a few rounds without telling the TD :-). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.535-4414, Fax -4445 1016 AB Amsterdam Home: +31.20.4195305 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee (...) was unable to reach a consensus that substantial merit was lacking. Thus, the appeal was deemed meritorious. (Orlando NABC #19). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 23:20:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:20:18 +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 XAA09165 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:20:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA13707; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:20:31 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <005e01bebb88$a1dcc8a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:48 PM 6/20/99 -0700, you wrote: >I understand your concerns, which are shared by Danny Kleinman. The >problem is how much one can deviate from what is on the cc without >having it called a change of system.. I think maybe the ACBL needs >to make clear that modest deviations based on judgment are not a >change of system. > >This is a really difficult subject, much more so than I would have >thought originally. > >One extreme would say that the opponents should not have to tell you >what defenses they will use until they use them. If you can't change >system to meet a defense, then why would you need to know? > >Maybe Gary Blaiss will be able to help out here. I'll ask him and >get back to you if he answers. I don't see it as being that complicated or difficult. If I write "15-17 HCP" as my opening 1NT range on my CC, what does that mean? According to the ACBL, it means (a) that I open 1NT on any balanced hand containing 15-17 HCP. IMO, it should mean (b) that I open 1NT on any balanced hand which, in my judgment, is equivalent in playing strength to a normal hand of 15-17 HCP. The question that then arises is, given that my partner will perforce gain some understanding of when and how I am likely to exercise my judgment under various circumstances, at what point do my deviations from my 15-17 HCP range, which may be less expected by my opponents than by my partner, cross the line from exercise of judgment to implicit agreement. Under (a), this occurs when I violate my explicit agreement (as defined under (a)). Under (b), this occurs when partner's subsequent actions differ from what they would have been under (a). Bids which are considered to be "based on an implicit agreement" under (a) but not under (b) should fall into a separate category of "stylistic or judgmental tendencies known to partner". IMO, these should be subject to requrirements for disclosure, but should not be subject to limitations on "method" or "system". What's the problem? >I asked him for the current ACBL policy on psychs 4-5 days ago, but >no answer yet. 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 Jun 21 23:29:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:29:16 +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 XAA09189 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:29:07 +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 PAA28354 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:28:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199906211328.PAA28354@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, 21 Jun 1999 15:29:31 +0200 Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <4XqTi4A2chb3Ewrw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > There is a tiny problem on RGB. It seemed obvious enough at first. > >It was totally mishandled at the time, so this obscured a real > >complication. > > > > Anyway, having posted an opinion, I am no longer sure, so I thought I > >would ask my good friends on BLML! > > > > At trick four dummy wins the trick with the ten of spades - but it is > >not turned down! > > > > At trick ten it is noticed that dummy has an extra card - whoops! > > > > ----------- > > > > Now you might consider the following: > > > > First, the defence say they misdefended because of the S10 in dummy, > >and could have taken another trick. Assume this is true. > > > > Second, the S10 was still in dummy at trick ten, and this may affect > >your ruling. > > > > Third, what is the difference if the S10 is played somewhere between > >tricks five and nine inclusive? > > > > Fourth, is there any difference if the S10 won trick four by being led > >to it? > > > Well, Steve tried to hijack the thread! > > Perhaps there are too many people in Malta at the moment! > > This is your moment: you have been reading BLML for some time, perhaps > not posting much [or ever]. It looks as though several of the major > contributors are away. You have a Law book, and here is David, not sure > of the answer to a problem. Laws 12, 44, 67 might be relevant. I am > asking *YOU* for an opinion. And your view is ...? OK, if you insist I'll add my two cent's worth. umm....... Is there a defective trick? No, everyone played a card to trick four. It is rather a case of "mishandling" dummy's cards, as in the 'Unusual dilemma' thread. So, if the non-offenders misdefended as a result of the irregularity, I would adjust (12A1, 12C2). JP From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 21 23:42:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:42:35 +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 XAA09242 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:42:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA15440 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990621094248.0072dacc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:42:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <6cJjQsA5bab3Ew6S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <035301beb9c5$c82f6e00$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:44 AM 6/21/99 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>But whichever I am playing this session, I will exercise my judgment by >>making those overcalls that feel right to me given my methods. This might >>well mean that on average I will hold sounder hands against the penalty >>doublers than against the negative doublers. This is what judgment is all >>about. >> >>Then people say that once my partner catches on to how I will tend to make >>those judgment calls, I have an implicit agreement, and an implicit >>agreement (e.g. weaker overcalls against negative doublers than against >>penalty doublers) is as much an agreement as an explicit agreement (e.g. >>either of my potential agreements about overcall style), thus to as much an >>extent systemic, and therefore I am now varying my system in response to my >>opponent's defenses, which I may not do. > > I would expect my partner to exercise his judgement to do his best for >the partnership taking all relevant factors into account. Is that an >illegal agreement across the pond? Well, that's what we seem to be debating. The ACBL says that I may not vary my methods as a function of who my opponents are. So I pick up a hand and hear an auction on which I my system allows me to "take my life in my hands". I judge that if I bid and the opponents work out to double me I will get a bad score, but if I bid and the opponents don't work out to double me I will get a good score. Am I permitted to make the bid against opponents whom I judge won't find the double but pass against opponents whom I judge will, or is that varying my methods as a function of who my opponents are? Many take the view that once my partner is aware of the fact that I will do this, it has become an implicit agreement, which is an agreement like any other, which is thus now part of my "methods", hence choosing to bid against one pair and pass against another is not permitted. IMO, it is simply exercising my bidding judgment, and thus not subject to such regulation. The ACBL has yet to settle the issue with a clear statement of interpretation. Perhaps Marv's correspondence with Gary Blaiss will help to bring this about. 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 Jun 21 23:57:47 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA09275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:57:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA09270 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:57:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA00029; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:56:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-37.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.101) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029934; Mon Jun 21 08:55:40 1999 Message-ID: <004001bebbed$e51bcc00$659c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:56:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 While all of Jesper's suggestions are excellent, might I add some I have found useful in practice. In some small clubs the funds just are not available to afford a non playing TD...but this does not necessarily mean no one else in the room is qualified to take a ruling. (I recall one 4 1/2 table Howell in which we had 9 certified directors in the room.) If there is another director present who has already played the board in question or who is not scheduled to play it, why not request him to take the call...you can help him out the next night when it is his turn in the barrel. There may even be a kibitzing director present who could take the call. If this is impossible, try to ascertain the facts WITHOUT seeing any of the cards. This is quite often possible for many of the most common rulings. In any case, the director/volunteer and his partner should not be penalised for their sacrifice to help ensure the game runs smoothly in accord with the law. I presume no paid director would be playing except to provide a novice a guaranteed partner, substitute briefly for a player taken ill or (in an informal small club at the request of the players) avoid a half table/sitout situation. No playing director is either as good a director or player as he might otherwise have been; this includes McKenney quality players at the club level. They may, however, make the whole game more pleasant for all concerned (including themselves) than if someone else had to take charge. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, June 19, 1999 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down >On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:13:03 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner > wrote: > >>In the actual case, the TD was playing and had not yet come to this >>board. David suggests the TD assign himself avg and the opponents avg+ >>when it comes time for him to play the board. I assume David wouldn't >>object to having a substitute play the board (if a suitable person is >>available) or (in the unlikely case the movement allows) changing the >>board or player progression so the TD never has to play the board at >>all. But if, as is likely, those options are not available, why >>avg/avg+? >> >>I can see where the TD might be uncomfortable giving himself avg+, but >>it is what L12C1 seems to say. Surely the TD cannot be said to be at >>fault for needing to make a ruling. Comments, anyone? > >I give myself avg+ in those situations. I do not see how the TD is at >fault. If being a playing TD means that it is to be considered my >fault that there is no non-playing TD, then I would not accept the job >of playing TD. > >The SO may be considered at fault for not spending the money on a >non-playing TD, but even if the SO is personified in the TD, it is not >that person as a player who is at fault. Besides, using a playing TD >is not a fault - it is specifically allowed by L80. > >It is bad enough for a playing TD to lose the chance to play a board >(and possibly also get a bad result on the board he was playing when >he was called). But to also consider him "at fault" for doing his job >as a TD is quite unreasonable (particularly to the TD's partner). > >In practice, when I've given a ruling as playing TD and has seen some >(or all) of the cards, I try to forget it, and I try not to remember >the board number. Sometimes I'm lucky and realize at the end of the >evening that I played that board without recognizing it. > >If I do realize that the board I'm playing or about to play is the one >I've ruled on, I tell the opponents so. I tell them that I will try >to play the board, but that if I get into a situation where I am not >quite certain that I can choose my action without being influenced by >my advance knowledge of the board, I will stop the play and award >A+/A+. Of course the other possibilities of L16B can also be >relevant, particularly letting my partner play the hand. This works >quite well in practice - all those hands on which the important or >difficult decisions are not mine can be played normally. > >This is not quite perfect: >* It requires a TD who is able to recognize a possible need to stop >the play; >* It requires the players to trust the TD to recognize such a need; >* Other players at the table may be able to deduce something about the >TD's hand from the fact that he plays on. > >But events where such considerations are more important than playing >the boards should have a non-playing TD. >-- >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . >http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 00:15:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:15:52 +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 AAA11563 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:15:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (98CB3DFD.ipt.aol.com [152.203.61.253]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id NFNSCJ4R; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:11:49 -0400 Message-ID: <376E4941.9D206B97@ehc.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:16:33 -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: Dummy's card not turned down References: <4XqTi4A2chb3Ewrw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've contributed in the past, but I've been silent lately--namely because someone has had my Law book for a while! (I know, that's a lame excuse since the Law is online....) So let me give a crack at this. David Stevenson wrote: > > There is a tiny problem on RGB. It seemed obvious enough at first. >It was totally mishandled at the time, so this obscured a real >complication. > > Anyway, having posted an opinion, I am no longer sure, so I thought > I would ask my good friends on BLML! > > At trick four dummy wins the trick with the ten of spades - but it > is not turned down! > > At trick ten it is noticed that dummy has an extra card - whoops! I'd like to apply L67B, but I must ask--where is the ten of spades at the end of the fourth trick? If it is still "in dummy," then L45B has not been fulfilled to its completion--declarer indicated a card, but neither declarer nor dummy "faced it on the table." If it is not played, are other cards to that trick played OOT? The rest of my arguments hinge on this point, so I'd like to see what others think of it before I continue. I'd rather not give two arguments for each of the questions based on the "play" of the card. John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu <---note new address!!! | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 00:44:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA11642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:44:30 +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 AAA11637 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:44:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.85.194]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAB1354 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:43:48 +0100 Message-ID: <005d01bebbf4$d3548aa0$c2558cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Fw: Book on movements Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:39:41 +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 John wrote: >In article <005201bebb7a$2fefc700$46758cd4@cmartin>, David Martin > writes >> >>#####OLD#### If a board is played n times in total then the amount of >>competition that you have on it with your direct opponents at the table is >>n-1 matchpoints whilst you have 1 matchpoint of competition with every >>indirect opponent to whom you are compared. Thus, if the movement is >>complete, then the "weight" of playing against a pair as opposed to >>comparing against them across the whole movement is given by (n-1)/n which >>is pretty close to 1. ###OLD#### > >this I'm not sure of because you are taking (in my 8 round example) only >six minus two comparisons with your own line. ... and the nett four >comparisons is what balances against playing a pair. I know it's an arm >waving argument, and don't I just know I shall get burnt here. :)) > >(Sigh. David *always* shoots me down in flames where movements are >concerned. We frequently discuss them and it is he who germinated my >interest.) ######### I took you rather literally here. If you have switched two boards relative to another pair then you have not been comparing with them across the *whole* movement! However, your calculations would still be wrong. Applying the competition equation Sij=(n-1)Aij+Bij-Cij to pairs i and j we find that in your example above with only one switch we have: (8-1).1+2-5=4 matchpoints of net competition with each pair that we play against directly at the table during the non-arrow-switched rounds; (8-1).1-7=0 net competition with the pair that we play against directly at the table during the arrow-switched round; and (8-1).0+6-2=4 matchpoints of competition with each pair whom we never meet directly but are compared against. Thus, except for the pair that we play against during the arrow-switch, the weight of playing against a pair as opposed to be compared with a pair is 4/4=1 !!!!!! Or, to put it another way, the effect of the round with the pair at your table is twice that of the comprisons with your own line but this is then mitigated by the effect of switching only 1/8 of the *boards/rounds* (NB!) which counters this excessive amount of competition. ######## > >> >>> >>>It's correct to use 1/4 switch in an all-play-all where you *can* ignore >>>the effect of playing against each pair, but not when you only play half >>>the pairs. > >Sorry, I was sloppy. With a five table Howell and a nine table Mitchell >where you play 3 sessions, each line playing once in the Howell and >twice in the Mitchell, then it looks to me as though slightly more than >one quarter of the rounds (but less than 1/3) should be switched. > >But that is why I'm coming on your next seminar :)) > >Cheers John >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 01:43:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:43:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11857 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:43:30 +1000 (EST) 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 QAA03063; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:43:36 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA27265; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:43:21 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:43:21 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27318; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:43:19 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:43:19 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199906211543.QAA27318@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: jkuchen@ehc.edu, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I'd like to apply L67B, but I must ask--where is the ten of spades > at the end of the fourth trick? If it is still "in dummy," then > L45B has not been fulfilled to its completion--declarer indicated > a card, but neither declarer nor dummy "faced it on the table." > If it is not played, are other cards to that trick played OOT? > I think the S10 has been played, because it has been named. I find the text of L45B very compelling: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table." The card is played by naming it, after it had been named (and hence played) dummy does something. So I rule on the basis that S10 is no longer part of dummy and there is no penalty (perhaps a PP for inattention on the part of dummy). I don't believe L72B1 will usually apply. If S10 is played to a later trick this trick is deficient (L46B4, declarer play is void), L67 applies to the later trick. [L45D] Similar problems occur with a card misplayed by dummy when attention is drawn to it after each* side has played to the next trick. As the laws are written the card misplayed by dummy has not been played and the wrong card is in dummy. However, EBU TDs are instructed to leave the earlier trick unchanged (both in terms of cards played and ownership). As if L45D went on to say "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, and attention is not drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, the card misplayed by dummy becomes (de facto) the card played to the trick and the card named by declarer has not been played." These laws would be more simple if a card was played from dummy in the same way as other players. Changing L45 A/B to: !! A. Play of Card !! !! Each player plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing{14} !! it on the table immediately before him (but see B and D below). !! !! B. Card to be Played from Dummy !! !! Declarer designated the card to be played from dummy by naming the card. !! In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the !! desired card himself. I would also help if dummy were made responsible for keeping all his unplayed card visible. Add something to L41D like: "Dummy shall ensure that the unplayed cards in his hand are, and remain, visible." Robin * See separate post. -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 01:51:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA11913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:51:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA11908 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 01:51:02 +1000 (EST) 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 QAA03265 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:51:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA28510 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:50:52 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:50:49 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27326 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:50:45 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:50:45 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199906211550.QAA27326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L45D: each = either/both Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I got myself confused reading L45D. "If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, ..." Does "each side" mean (a) "either side" (b) "both sides" (c) something else? If (a) or (b), would not "either"/"both" be less ambiguous? Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 02:05:32 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA12155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 02:05:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA12148 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 02:05:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA20417; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:03:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-37.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.101) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020285; Mon Jun 21 11:02:41 1999 Message-ID: <005401bebbff$a3af93c0$659c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Cc: , , , Subject: Re: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:03:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 While we are expressing opinions, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why the ROW doesn't make use of the opt out in 61B. How can preventing an established revoke be a bad thing? For once the ACBL got one dead right. This whole question is obviated if you just allow "having no spades partner." Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Mark Newton To: 'MSDBridge@aol.com' Cc: 'Schoderb@aol.com' ; 'gester@globalnet.co.uk' ; 'Hermes@dodona.softnet.co.uk' ; 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Date: Saturday, June 19, 1999 10:21 AM Subject: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. > > To Mike Swanson > > You say : " A defender Enquirer of partner when he fails to follow to Clubs, >thereby preventing the revoke but invoking Law 63B. The defender had >attempted to ruff (Spades are trumps), but now has to follow suit and does >not win the trick nor does he win a trick subsequently with any of his Clubs. >He does, however, win a trick subsequently with his trump and his side >does win several more tricks also subsequently. What is the ruling?" > > In the further text of your message you point to the inequity if the >offending side achieves a better score as a consequence of the illegal enquiry. > >Reply:- > >This law has lost some of its shape since it was amended in 1997. There >has been some confusion and it is important to read Law 63B with some care. > Today, Saturday, June 19,1999, in Malta, I have spent some time in conference >with Ton Kooijman on the subject and we have reached an agreement which he >has authorized me to publish as an interim ruling of the WBF Laws Committee. >(We are persuaded it is unlikely to be changed when the WBFLC next convenes >but it is open to the Committee to review the ruling at that time.) > >The ruling is that, whilst a legal card is to be substituted for the revoke card, in >applying the penalty from Law 64 the Director must disregard the substitution >of a legal card and consider the revoke trick with the revoke card established. >If that card wins the trick then Law 64A1 applies. If the Director is of the opinion >that a subsequent card would then win a trick for the offending side there is a >two trick penalty. But if the revoke card would not win the trick Law 64A2 >applies and in determining the penalty the Director is to form his opinion as to >whether the offending player would subsequently win a trick with a card that >could have been played legally to the revoke trick. The number of tricks to be >transferred is limited to tricks won on and after the revoke trick when the hand >is played with the legal card substituted. > >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee, >19 June, 1999. > >[p.s. as an expression solely of personal opinion my view is that the 1987 law >was simpler, cleaner, and to be desired. I can't think why 'x' had to disturb it >and I would return to it.] > > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 03:11:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:58 +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 DAA12322 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10w7bX-000HuS-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:11:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:39:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: L45D: each = either/both In-Reply-To: <199906211550.QAA27326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906211550.QAA27326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >I got myself confused reading L45D. > >"If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not >name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before >each side has played to the next trick, ..." > >Does "each side" mean >(a) "either side" I don't think it can mean this. Why write anything if any play to the next trick seals the play? It would read " ... any player has played to ... " >(b) "both sides" I have always ruled (b). It's come up about half a dozen times while I've been TD'ing. I explain this as "In this situation we can unscramble provided only one card has been played to the next trick" IMO better wording would be " ... withdrawn provided only one partnership has played to the next trick ..." (3rd hand plays OOT for example, would still be ok in both wordings). I'd prefer it to be ... only one player ..." btw >(c) something else? It could get complicated if there is an infraction as well. I haven't yet had to test that one :)) > >If (a) or (b), would not "either"/"both" be less ambiguous? > prefer my wording john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 03:11:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:57 +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 DAA12323 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10w7bZ-000HuS-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:11:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:02:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down In-Reply-To: <199906211543.QAA27318@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906211543.QAA27318@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> I'd like to apply L67B, but I must ask--where is the ten of spades >> at the end of the fourth trick? If it is still "in dummy," then >> L45B has not been fulfilled to its completion--declarer indicated >> a card, but neither declarer nor dummy "faced it on the table." >> If it is not played, are other cards to that trick played OOT? >> > >I think the S10 has been played, because it has been named. I find >the text of L45B very compelling: > "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after > which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table." >The card is played by naming it, after it had been named (and >hence played) dummy does something. This is a "me too" posting. I was about to post virtually the same arguements > >So I rule on the basis that S10 is no longer part of dummy and there >is no penalty (perhaps a PP for inattention on the part of dummy). PP is appropriate (It's like hiding the Ace of Diamonds, one card too few - or leaving the 10S, one card too many). I don't think I can adjust however unless the arguements about too many vs too few are entirely parallel. John -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 03:11:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:57 +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 DAA12324 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10w7bZ-000HuN-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:11:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:53:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <$nbS+0AxYhb3EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <$nbS+0AxYhb3EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>A minor point: Where boards are not square, as in the U. S., it >>might be better to switch just one board (the last to be played) per >>round. This is slightly better in theory than switching two or three >>boards on one round, and would give a TD ample time to check that >>all tables have complied with the switch. When all the boards of a >>round are to be switched, the TD has to run around making sure that >>all tables have complied before hands have been removed from the >>first board. > > I am not entirely sure that I agree with the "has to run around" bit. >Is it entirely necessary to check that your instructions are being >followed? > aw c'mon David, we both need the exercise. :)) -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 03:11:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:57 +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 DAA12325 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:11:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10w7bX-000G4Y-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:11:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:52:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Book on movements In-Reply-To: <004301bebb84$69cd6c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <004301bebb84$69cd6c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >> >The 1994 edition replaces Rosler's arrow switches with those >recommended by Olaf Hammer, "using computer analysis." The switches >shown typically involve 1/3 of the rounds. > >It adds a note: Frequent arrow-switching is a controversial matter. >A mathematical paper by Dr. Ross Moore of Sydney, Australia, asserts >that "Too many arrow switches spoil the balance." >I would bet that Dr. Moore would agree with John Probst's "1/8" >recommendation. > >A minor point: Where boards are not square, as in the U. S., it >might be better to switch just one board (the last to be played) per >round. This is slightly better in theory than switching two or three >boards on one round, and would give a TD ample time to check that >all tables have complied with the switch. When all the boards of a >round are to be switched, the TD has to run around making sure that >all tables have complied before hands have been removed from the >first board. > In a club game the players "know" it's an arrow switch on the last round(s) and do it almost without being told. In a tourney your method could well be ok. Cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 03:55:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:55:25 +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 DAA12452 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 03:55:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([62.172.84.28]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAB6604; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:54:45 +0100 Message-ID: <00c001bebc0f$7ef6fe00$c2558cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: Subject: Fw: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 18:42:54 +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 Grattan wrote: Subject: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. > > To Mike Swanson > > You say : " A defender Enquirer of partner when he fails to follow to Clubs, >thereby preventing the revoke but invoking Law 63B. The defender had >attempted to ruff (Spades are trumps), but now has to follow suit and does >not win the trick nor does he win a trick subsequently with any of his Clubs. >He does, however, win a trick subsequently with his trump and his side >does win several more tricks also subsequently. What is the ruling?" > > In the further text of your message you point to the inequity if the >offending side achieves a better score as a consequence of the illegal enquiry. > >Reply:- > >This law has lost some of its shape since it was amended in 1997. There >has been some confusion and it is important to read Law 63B with some care. > Today, Saturday, June 19,1999, in Malta, I have spent some time in conference >with Ton Kooijman on the subject and we have reached an agreement which he >has authorized me to publish as an interim ruling of the WBF Laws Committee. >(We are persuaded it is unlikely to be changed when the WBFLC next convenes >but it is open to the Committee to review the ruling at that time.) > >The ruling is that, whilst a legal card is to be substituted for the revoke card, in >applying the penalty from Law 64 the Director must disregard the substitution >of a legal card and consider the revoke trick with the revoke card established. >If that card wins the trick then Law 64A1 applies. If the Director is of the opinion >that a subsequent card would then win a trick for the offending side there is a >two trick penalty. But if the revoke card would not win the trick Law 64A2 >applies and in determining the penalty the Director is to form his opinion as to >whether the offending player would subsequently win a trick with a card that >could have been played legally to the revoke trick. The number of tricks to be >transferred is limited to tricks won on and after the revoke trick when the hand >is played with the legal card substituted. > >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee, >19 June, 1999. > >[p.s. as an expression solely of personal opinion my view is that the 1987 law >was simpler, cleaner, and to be desired. I can't think why 'x' had to disturb it >and I would return to it.] > > ########### Does this interpretation also apply to L43B2(b)? ############ > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 06:30:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:30:25 +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 GAA12868 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:30:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.193.90]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990621203016.FDSM14205.fep2@ip90.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:30:16 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:30:07 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <376fa0be.3956068@bilbo.dit.dk> References: <4XqTi4A2chb3Ewrw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4XqTi4A2chb3Ewrw@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 GAA12869 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 11:43:02 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: [though not in quite the order shown here] > Well, Steve tried to hijack the thread! And I helped him do it, so I guess I'd better make up my mind on the real subject. It seems to me that the S10 has been played (L45B). The fact that it is still lying on the table is a violation of correct procedure by dummy and may have confused players. >> Now you might consider the following: >> >> First, the defence say they misdefended because of the S10 in dummy, >>and could have taken another trick. Assume this is true. Adjusted score, L84E and L12A1. >> Second, the S10 was still in dummy at trick ten, and this may affect >>your ruling. No. Put it where it belongs with the original trick. >> Third, what is the difference if the S10 is played somewhere between >>tricks five and nine inclusive? That trick is defective, L67. >> Fourth, is there any difference if the S10 won trick four by being led >>to it? No. The above is what I believe to be the right ruling. However, I have to admit that I do not find the opposite point of view (that the S10 is missing from a trick and that L67 therefore is to be applied to that trick) particularly illogical either. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 06:32:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA12943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:32:18 +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 GAA12938 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:32:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10wAjR-0008Zf-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 20:31:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:08:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Handicaps MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. This player would like the cards called as they are played [except when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read out the calls. Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. -- 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 Jun 22 06:45:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:45:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailrelay.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-121.home.net [216.216.127.121] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA13023 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:44:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from ani-bdc.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-124.home.net [216.216.127.124] (may be forged)) by mailrelay.affiliation.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17483; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:42:42 -0700 Received: by ani-bdc.affiliation.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:42:44 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jeff Goldsmith To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Handicaps Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:42:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. This player would like the cards called as they are played [except when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read out the calls. Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. In the ACBL, these requests are accepted. A real problem will occur when we have a vision-impaired person who can't deal with bidding boxes and a hearing-impaired person who can't deal with spoken bids at the same table. Obviously, these requests are reasonable; I think it's equally obvious that accepting them is also reasonable. Whether or not they are legal depends, I think, upon Conditions of Contest. I believe most ACBL CoCs allow for such requests to be granted. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 06:45:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA13033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:45:03 +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 GAA13024 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 06:44:55 +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 PAA71217 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 15:44:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0M4BS01R Mon, 21 Jun 99 15:44:45 Message-ID: <9906211544.0M4BS01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 99 15:44:45 Subject: DUMMY'S CARD NOT TU To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems that an important point was whether the S10 was played at T4. L45B requires that to play dummy's card it must be picked up and faced on the table. I would think that moving the card so that it is detached from the remaining cards in dummy would meet the requirement. The facts say that this was done, so whether the card was quitted or not it should be plain to the table that the S10 was a played card. Also there were plays to subsequent tricks. Do the laws say what to do with a played card after a trick is complete? Yes, L65A says that cards played to a trick are turned face down after four cards have been contributed to the trick. Four cards have been contributed to T4 so once it is discovered that the S10 had not been quitted the S10 is turned face down in the position of the 4th trick per 65C. It looks as if this would be the case as long as the card was still around after T13. It would appear that at most a PP could be assessed for failure to properly quit a card. Because the defending players could have had the S10 quitted, I have a difficult time finding that the NOS line of defense was damaged by the failure to quit a played card, but maybe there are such cases where L84E would apply. [What is curious is that the laws let hang how a defective trick is defined even though they refer to an entity called a defective trick in L67. L67A refers to the situation where a contestant did not play to a trick, but in this instance they did play so L67A would not apply. L67B speaks of play to the following trick. L67 appears to take a form which seems to apply. The defective trick is the one that dummy won but did not quit the S10. Both sides played afterwards. But now a problem arises- to apply L67B1 requires that a card was not played to the defective trick, but the S10 was in this case. Therefore Law 67 does not apply here.] What may be considered interesting is the effect of playing the S10 a second time. By doing so, it would then follow that the only way it legally could be played later would be because it had in fact not been played to T4. And if no card had been played to T4 then L67B1 would apply. Here I can definitely see the potential for damage to the defense by 'playing the same card twice' where the period under consideration goes back to T4; and L84E would likely apply. But this raises the question where if it is deemed that dummy did not play to T4 and thereby invoking L67B1, how could dummy have won T4? I am not comfortable with my reasoning for applying L67B1, so I would be more inclined to assess a PP for failure to quit a played card and a PP for playing a card twice and adjust if applicable under L84E. >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> There is a tiny problem on RGB. It seemed obvious enough at first. >>It was totally mishandled at the time, so this obscured a real >>complication. >> >> Anyway, having posted an opinion, I am no longer sure, so I thought I >>would ask my good friends on BLML! >> >> At trick four dummy wins the trick with the ten of spades - but it is >>not turned down! >> >> At trick ten it is noticed that dummy has an extra card - whoops! >> >> ----------- >> >> Now you might consider the following: >> >> First, the defence say they misdefended because of the S10 in dummy, >>and could have taken another trick. Assume this is true. >> >> Second, the S10 was still in dummy at trick ten, and this may affect >>your ruling. >> >> Third, what is the difference if the S10 is played somewhere between >>tricks five and nine inclusive? >> >> Fourth, is there any difference if the S10 won trick four by being >led >to it? >> >Well, Steve tried to hijack the thread! >Perhaps there are too many people in Malta at the moment! >This is your moment: you have been reading BLML for some time, perhaps >not posting much [or ever]. It looks as though several of the major >contributors are away. You have a Law book, and here is David, not sure >of the answer to a problem. Laws 12, 44, 67 might be relevant. I am >asking *YOU* for an opinion. And your view is ...? >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ > Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 07:01:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:01:59 +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 HAA13153 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:01:52 +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 RAA23992 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:01:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906212101.RAA15862@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:08:45 +0100) Subject: Re: Handicaps Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. > This player would like the cards called as they are played [except > when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or > at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read > out the calls. > Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes > cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. > I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, > legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it > difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. This is probably up to the sponsoring organization; there is no sepcific rule in the Laws. The ACBL's general policies require bidding boxes in many tournaments unless a player has a handicap which prevents their use.. This appears frequently in published Conditions of Contest. Both players above would seem to qualify. (Conversely, bidding boxes are mandatory in an event in which they would not normally be mandatory if a player has ahandicap which requires their use.) I haven't seen such an official policy for low-vision players, but I would assume that there is one. I have played against such players several times, with arrangements similar to what this player requests; one player also used Kem Giant Index cards for the boards she played. The game either used this set throughout her section, or else duplicated an extra set of boards for her table. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.lsa.umich.edu http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 07:12:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:12:56 +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 HAA13218 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:12:47 +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 OAA26722; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:11:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199906212111.OAA26722@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Handicaps In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jun 1999 13:42:35 PDT." Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:11:57 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. > > > > This player would like the cards called as they are played [except > > when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or > > at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read > > out the calls. > > > > Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes > > cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. > > > > I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, > > legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it > > difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. > > > In the ACBL, these requests are accepted. A real problem > will occur when we have a vision-impaired person who can't > deal with bidding boxes and a hearing-impaired person who > can't deal with spoken bids at the same table. Even that problem shouldn't be insurmountable, as long as the other two people sitting at the table are decent human beings. Probably, one person would take the extra bidding box belonging to the visually-impaired person and pull his bidding cards out so the hearing-impaired person could see the bidding; and if the hearing-impaired person is unable to speak well, one of the other two players can speak his calls for the benefit of the visually-impaired person. I've never been in this situation, but I do occasionally have to speak out my cards as I play them, and I haven't noticed this making my concentration any worse than it already is. Of course, it would be an even worse problem if there are four impaired people at the table---one visually-impaired, one hearing-impaired, two decency-impaired---but even then, one might be able to find a kibitzer to help out. Or a director, if this situation will be present for only two or three boards. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 07:17:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:17:49 +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 HAA13276 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:17:40 +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 OAA26832; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:16:56 -0700 Message-Id: <199906212116.OAA26832@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Handicaps In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:01:43 PDT." <199906212101.RAA15862@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 14:16:57 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > I haven't seen such an [ACBL] official policy for low-vision players, but I > would assume that there is one. I did see one once, but I don't remember where I saw it, and I wasn't able to find it on their web site. Anyway, I think the policy is that a visually-impaired player has the right to request that the cards are called out as they're played, and also the right to ask, at any point, what cards are left in the dummy. I'm not sure if the policy requires Braille cards to be made available, but the few times I've played against a blind player, the player played with Braille cards, and I think a director was on hand to set up this player's hands before every round. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 07:42:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:42:38 +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 HAA13369 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:42:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from pf3s11a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.139.244] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10wBpV-00068y-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:42:14 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L45D: each = either/both Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:48:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01bebc2f$caa8d6a0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, June 21, 1999 5:11 PM Subject: L45D: each = either/both Robin wrote.. >I got myself confused reading L45D. > >"If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not >name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before >each side has played to the next trick, ..." > >Does "each side" mean >(a) "either side" >(b) "both sides" >(c) something else? I think (c). I understand "either side" to mean, one player from one partnership, or one player from the other partnership. I think "both sides" to mean all four players. I understand "each side" to mean at least one player from each partnership. (a) means one player (b) means four players. (c)"each side" means two, three, or four players, (but both parnerships must be represented) > >If (a) or (b), would not "either"/"both" be less ambiguous? N/A Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 07:59:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA13417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:59:17 +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 HAA13412 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:59:10 +1000 (EST) From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: from KRAllison@aol.com (88) by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id qPIBa05869; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:57:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:57:46 EDT Subject: Re: Handicaps To: bnewsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 13 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At one New York club, a player who is virtually blind has come to a compromise. She puts her bids out (she can find them) and everyone else announces bids as they place them. She requires that played cards be announced and no one seems to have a problem with this. Waldemar Von Zedwitz won a world championship under similar circumstances and no one thought to refuse him this help. I'm enough handicapped by arthritis to need a card holder when I play but I use bidboxes. I think we can make much more of handicaps or much less depending on our attitudes. I hope Chyah responds to this question as well - she is (you may not have know this) profoundly hearing impaired and has had a great deal to do with ACBL's policies on bid boxes and has unfortunately had to deal with some very unpleasant folks who thought they were being put upon when asked to use the boxes and to Alert with the strip as well as their (inaudible to Chyah) voices. Just a few opening thoughts on the subject. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 08:06:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA13449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:06:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mid.minfod.com (mid.minfod.com [207.227.70.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13444 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:06:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [207.227.70.80] (helo=JNichols) by mid.minfod.com with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10wCAM-0006uH-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:03:46 -0500 Message-Id: <4.1.19990621170200.00942380@popmid.minfod.com> X-Sender: jnichols@popmid.minfod.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:06:20 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John S. Nichols" Subject: Re: Handicaps In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:08 AM 6/21/99 , David Stevenson wrote: > > Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. > > This player would like the cards called as they are played [except >when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or >at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read >out the calls. > > Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes >cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. > > I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, >legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it >difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. > There are several players at our club with various conditions that require adjustments in the physical environment. We are happy to accommodate them. In addition, here in the USA we have a law known as the "Americans with Disabilities Act" that makes these requests __VERY__ enforceable--in the courts. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 09:53:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:53:39 +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 JAA13607 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:53:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb5s07a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.135.182] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10wDsQ-0003fD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:53:23 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Dummy's card not turned down Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:59:35 +0100 Message-ID: <01bebc42$1d3f3e60$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: Friday, June 18, 1999 11:54 PM Subject: Dummy's card not turned down > > There is a tiny problem on RGB. It seemed obvious enough at first. >It was totally mishandled at the time, so this obscured a real >complication. > > Anyway, having posted an opinion, I am no longer sure, so I thought I >would ask my good friends on BLML! > > At trick four dummy wins the trick with the ten of spades - but it is >not turned down! > > At trick ten it is noticed that dummy has an extra card - whoops! I am going to use Law67B1. > > ----------- > > Now you might consider the following: > > First, the defence say they misdefended because of the S10 in dummy, >and could have taken another trick. Assume this is true. I believe I have applied the correct law, correctly. There would be a Spade less in dummy and the complaint may now not apply. Appeals forms are available:-) > > Second, the S10 was still in dummy at trick ten, and this may affect >your ruling. No > > Third, what is the difference if the S10 is played somewhere between >tricks five and nine inclusive? Dummy still has a card too many. Law67B1 still applies.(except that L67b1(b) may apply) > > Fourth, is there any difference if the S10 won trick four by being led >to it? No. I considered going down the road of a card not played. The card was played but not quitted correctly. This is likely to happen if dummy has left the table and nobody has turned the card over. Leaving the table is of course in violation of procedure, (L74C8) and while I do not get upset when things go well, I could apply a penalty if dummy has left a declarer who cannot cope with playing both hands. [note 74C8 "needlessly"] Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 09:59:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:59:44 +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 JAA13643 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:59:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10wDy4-00063b-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:59:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:00:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. References: <005401bebbff$a3af93c0$659c5ccf@host> In-Reply-To: <005401bebbff$a3af93c0$659c5ccf@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >While we are expressing opinions, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why >the ROW doesn't make use of the opt out in 61B. How can preventing an >established revoke be a bad thing? For once the ACBL got one dead right. >This whole question is obviated if you just allow "having no spades >partner." "Having no spades, partner" = "Oh look, partner, declarer has more spades than I expected." -- 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 Jun 22 09:59:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:59:36 +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 JAA13638 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:59:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10wDy4-00063c-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:59:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:02:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L45D: each = either/both References: <199906211550.QAA27326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199906211550.QAA27326@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: >I got myself confused reading L45D. > >"If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not >name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before >each side has played to the next trick, ..." > >Does "each side" mean >(a) "either side" No. >(b) "both sides" Yes. >(c) something else? No. Now, before I get shot down [again] for not quoting an authority, I believe that this is the literal meaning of the Law. >If (a) or (b), would not "either"/"both" be less ambiguous? Quite possibly. -- 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 Jun 22 12:27:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA13889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:27:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA13884 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:27:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA05988 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:27:16 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id WAA17376 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:16:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199906220216.WAA17376@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:16:24, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- >>In addition, here in the USA we have a law known as the "Americans with Disabilities Act" that makes these requests __VERY__ enforceable-- in the courts. << In the USA there is also the Federal "Equal Access Law". Federal, for our non-USA members means that it is a National law as opposed individual state laws. I believe that Bridge in the USA falls under this Law. The ACBL has a "regulation" governing these situations and I am the one who wrote it, way before I began working for the ACBL. Summation: The regulation says that anyone may use any device that will raise their ability to compete to that of someone without a disability. Exception: A particular disability may not reinvent adaptive devices when there are devices already in existence for that disability ... i.e. bidding boxes for the hearing impaired and braille cards for the blind. If you are in a bidding box event, you use the boxes provided, but if you were in a club, people have used alternative bidding boxes without much problem. The only problem is retraining the opponents on particular boxes. ================= Hearing impaired bidding boxes vs finger and hand disabilities: Simple, the person not able to use the box speaks out loud and someone else pulls the cards out for them. Hearing vs visual impairments: This one can get difficult depending on what additional hidden disabilities there are. At the simplest level, someone pulls the cards for the visual disabled and everyone says everything out loud at the table. At the Nationals, the blind and the deaf learn to watch out for being in the same sections or the possibility of crossing over. With so many sections available, the directors can usually move someone around and avoid the problem. I have the additional problem that auditory information is in one part of my brain and symbolic is in another; switching back and forth is pain . That meant that initially, I could not do bidding boxes and speak out loud at the same time. I actually had to practice at it, but now we do it without a problem, or at worse I blow a board, but I don't panic. I have seen a problem with dyslexia vs the bidding boxes where the person in question couldn't even look at the boxes and needed them taken off the table. A year later, she too had practiced and was able to cope. =================== Making things better: A great part of these clashes are really people management problems. 1) People panic at anything that is new to them. They are already nervous about playing the best bridge they can. We gently guide people and it makes cooperation that much better. We let them say their bids out loud before touching the bidding box and then promise to correct their card if they pull the wrong thing. this is best because a) it avoids people fingering the boxes; b) by making the decision of what to bid first, there is not the complication of trying to do two things at once. This causes further panic. 2) Any people problems, call the director: Directors need to be sympathetic to both sides of the issues: disability vs panic. Sometimes directors need to teach, but in any case, they should be gently insistent. 3) The ACBL has little cards that travel with the hearing impaired and visually impaired to help identify situations. However, a great number of the disabled/impaired do not wish to identify themselves; they wish to blend in. 4) People should find out what the protocol is for various situations and then stick to it. I have sat on several committees where people refused to call out their cards against a blind person. The blind person was the declarer and the dummy politely called out the opponents cards only to later be accused of modulating their voice to help the blind person know which way to correctly play the hand. With a regulation in force, people are compelled to call out their own cards. ======================== Basically, any reasonable request should be honored. A disabled person already overcame a wall to put themselves into a difficult situation. How they handle it depends on where they are at in the mental adaptation of their disability and regaining their self respect/self worth. It can be a traumatic time for them. Feel free to ask me further questions, even the more difficult ones that you think you would be embarrassed to ask. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 13:53:12 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA14071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:53:12 +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 NAA14066 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:53:04 +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; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:51:25 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199906212116.OAA26832@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jun 1999 17:01:43 PDT." <199906212101.RAA15862@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:46:33 -0400 To: Adam Beneschan From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Handicaps Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:16 PM -0400 6/21/99, Adam Beneschan wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: > >> I haven't seen such an [ACBL] official policy for low-vision players, but I >> would assume that there is one. > >I did see one once, but I don't remember where I saw it, and I wasn't >able to find it on their web site. "An ACBL-sanctioned club game may not prohibit a physically disabled member from participating because of his or her handicap. The club must allow such players to use special equipment, such as Braille cards or bid boxes, and should accommodate such players with special positions such as permanent North/South seating." -- ACBL Rules and Regulations, Chapter 4, Section IV H, Page 23. I don't see anything specific for higher level games or tournaments, but I can't imagine the ACBL taking a chance on falling afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act. :-) At the club here, we have a player whose vision is such that he can't see to pick cards out of the bidding box (he can see them fine once they're on the table) so he speaks his bids, and we pull his cards from the bidding box. No big deal. 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/AwUBN28InL2UW3au93vOEQIJ1wCgvUGAovo9sBeK+ln2FO1NloL0ebcAoJuC /1eueEZDSg7zeftI4qj0euTf =9un6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 16:07:51 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:07:51 +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 QAA14272 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:07:44 +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 XAA17678; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012b01bebc75$800417e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Eric Landau" Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:06:36 -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 Eric Landau wrote: I wrote (privately, but that's okay) > > >I understand your concerns, which are shared by Danny Kleinman. The > >problem is how much one can deviate from what is on the cc without > >having it called a change of system.. I think maybe the ACBL needs > >to make clear that modest deviations based on judgment are not a > >change of system. > > > >This is a really difficult subject, much more so than I would have > >thought originally. > > > >One extreme would say that the opponents should not have to tell you > >what defenses they will use until they use them. If you can't change > >system to meet a defense, then why would you need to know? > > > >Maybe Gary Blaiss will be able to help out here. I'll ask him and > >get back to you if he answers. > > I don't see it as being that complicated or difficult. > > If I write "15-17 HCP" as my opening 1NT range on my CC, what does that > mean? According to the ACBL, it means (a) that I open 1NT on any balanced > hand containing 15-17 HCP. IMO, it should mean (b) that I open 1NT on any > balanced hand which, in my judgment, is equivalent in playing strength to a > normal hand of 15-17 HCP. Agreed. (b) is actually ACBL policy, tucked away in *Duplicate Decisions* A deviation, defined as "a bid in which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump," is permissible and is not to be treated as a psych. That definition is augmented by "a bid of a suit in which the length varies by no more than one card from the agreed or announced length and the hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system being played." These are Don Oakie's words, by the way. For instance, my card shows that weak two bids are based on good six-card suits. I deviate from that on rare occasions, especially in 3rd seat, maybe bidding a strong five-carder. Only if deviations are frequent do they become a potential partnership agreement., so I'm okay. If the five-card bid is also understrength, however, we are into the psych area, in which the rules are (to say the least) more strict. You can vary from your 15-17 as long as partner does not cater to that possibility because you do it often, since it qualifies as a "deviation." > > The question that then arises is, given that my partner will perforce gain > some understanding of when and how I am likely to exercise my judgment > under various circumstances, at what point do my deviations from my 15-17 > HCP range, which may be less expected by my opponents than by my partner, > cross the line from exercise of judgment to implicit agreement. Under (a), > this occurs when I violate my explicit agreement (as defined under (a)). > Under (b), this occurs when partner's subsequent actions differ from what > they would have been under (a). > > Bids which are considered to be "based on an implicit agreement" under (a) > but not under (b) should fall into a separate category of "stylistic or > judgmental tendencies known to partner". IMO, these should be subject to > requrirements for disclosure, but should not be subject to limitations on > "method" or "system". What's the problem? > I don't think we have a problem here, except in defining the undefinable: When does a deviation (or a psych, for that matter) become an implicit partnership agreement? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 16:18:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA14298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:18:01 +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 QAA14293 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:17:54 +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 XAA05611 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002b01bebc76$eda18160$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004301bebb84$69cd6c20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <$nbS+0AxYhb3EwpV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: Book on movements Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:16:20 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >A minor point: Where boards are not square, as in the U. S., it > >might be better to switch just one board per > >round. This is slightly better in theory than switching two or three > >boards on one round, and would give a TD ample time to check that > >all tables have complied with the switch. When all the boards of a > >round are to be switched, the TD has to run around making sure that > >all tables have complied before hands have been removed from the > >first board. > > I am not entirely sure that I agree with the "has to run around" bit. > Is it entirely necessary to check that your instructions are being > followed? > Depends on the culture, I suppose. In these parts most people don't pay much attention to anything the TD is saying, while in the more polite U. K. I'm sure they do. I can remember when arrow switches were used here, there were always a few tables that didn't switch. The TD would say, "It's okay for this board, just score it as is, but please turn the other(s)." Just today there were two E/W pairs in our local club game that started bidding hands (strangely familiar hands) without skipping a table. Happens all the time. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 17:44:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:44:58 +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 RAA14436 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:44:51 +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 AAA16142 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009401bebc83$13a0de40$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906212116.OAA26832@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:44:33 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David Grabiner wrote: > > > I haven't seen such an [ACBL] official policy for low-vision players, but I > > would assume that there is one. > > I did see one once, but I don't remember where I saw it, and I wasn't > able to find it on their web site. Anyway, I think the policy is that > a visually-impaired player has the right to request that the cards are > called out as they're played, and also the right to ask, at any point, > what cards are left in the dummy. I'm not sure if the policy requires > Braille cards to be made available, but the few times I've played > against a blind player, the player played with Braille cards, and I > think a director was on hand to set up this player's hands before > every round. > Just for the record, the ACBL Bidding Box Regulations have only this to say: "When bidding boxes are in use..., no player has the right to refuse to play with them (unless they have a handicap which precludes their use). Conversely, if the use of bidding boxes is required, a player with a handicap that precludes such use should not be interrogated as to details of his handicap when he has stated that one exists." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 17:58:39 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA14475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:58:39 +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 RAA14470 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:58:31 +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 AAA17325 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:58:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00bd01bebc84$fbea64e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: ACBL Psych Policy Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:58:11 -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 From: Marvin L. French: I asked ACBL Chief TD to point me to, or provide me with, the current ACBL policy in regard to psychs. His reply: "I have attached the statement in "Duplicate Decisions" which pertains to Psychs. While "Duplicate Decisions" is mainly directed at club directors, tournament directors also refer to and use the policy and procedure statements (such as those on psychs) in making decisions at tournaments although they may have and use additional or other source material. " So, the following is the presumed official ACBL policy on psychs (perhaps muddied a bit by Gary's "although"). I have quoted parts of it before on BLML, but here it is in one piece. I feel that it is not so restrictive as is generally believed, if you overlook the second sentence. The trouble comes from overzealous TDs, perhaps those who "use additional or other source material.": GENERAL GUIDELINES: A player may make any call or any play (including an intentionally misleading one that departs from commonly accepted or previously announced conventional practice) without prior announcement, provided it is not based on a partnership understanding. In other words, a player can make any bid that will fool partner and his opponents equally. However, ACBL, or other sponsoring organizations, control psychs by controlling the conventional usages which may impact them. ACBL regulations prohibit psychs depending on the convention chart in use for the event. Please note the DISALLOWED section of the appropriate chart. While psychic bids are an integral part of bridge, a player does not have the right to psych as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys doing so. A series of tops and bottoms so earned by one pair can unfairly affect the final results of a tournament. ACBL'S POLICY ON PSYCHS: Psychs are regulated by taking disciplinary action against a player who disrupts a game with frequent, random psychs. The Board of Director has defined types of disruptive bidding that make the offenders subject to penalty. The following definitions and explanations should prove helpful to all Directors trying to enforce this regulation. Excessive Psychic Bidding -- When three or more psychic initial actions by members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. A presumption of inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that they happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate for psyches. The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience. (If partner opens 1 three times in one session with two or fewer diamonds, partner finds it hard to take any 1 opening bid seriously.) When the psychic bidder's partner, because of prior usages, has a better chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is presumptive evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, and the result of the board may be adjusted. [Some opponents would not catch a psych when looking at 30 HCP, so taken literally this sentence would bar psychs entirely. I don't think the writer realized what he was saying -- mlf] Frivolous Psychic Bidding -- Any psychic action inspired by a spirit of malicious mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous. Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding -- Action apparently designed to give the opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, psychs against pairs or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players and psychs used merely to create action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike psychic bidding. NOTE TO CLUB MANAGERS: Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled psychs by saying that the burden of proof will be on the player, if he makes more than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not using excessive, frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding. Disciplinary action ( not score adjustments; these should be made only when the result was affected because the partner may have allowed for the psych due to previous experience) should be taken against a player whose bidding does not conform to these regulations. PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR DIRECTOR ATTENTION: Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or suit length is by definition a psych. However, some psychs are disruptive to the game while others involve bridge tactics These definitions should help to distinguish a psych that warrants disciplinary action or, at the least, attention by the Director, from those that are an integral part of the game. A Tactical Bid is a psych that is made to paint a picture in an opponent's andpartner's mind that will cause them to play you for a holding that you do not have, enabling you to succeed at the contract to which you were inevitably headed. Example: After partner opens with 1*S*, responder bids 2*D* to try to ward off a diamond lead on the way to 4*S* holding: *S*QJxxx *H*Ax *D*xxx *C*KQx. Or, you might cuebid an ace you don't have on your way to six of a suit. NOTE: Frequent use of tactics similar to this will develop an implicit partnership agreement which requires an Alert. A Waiting Bid is generally a forcing bid made by responder to allow him time to learn more about partner's opening hand. This type of call is only rarely a psych since in most cases the suit length is not grossly misstated. Example: Over a 1*S* opening, responder bids 2*C* on: *S*Axxxx, *H*xxxx *D*xx *C*AQ. The hand is too good for 2*S* and not good enough to force to game. The 2*C* bid is a waiting bid. If opener rebids 2*S*, responder can now bid 3*S* -- invitational. A Deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb, 1978, ACBL BULLETIN) as a bid in which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also defined a Deviation as a bid of a suit in which the length of the suit varies by no more than one card from the agreed or announced length and the hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system being played. If either of these situations occur, it is easy to see by repeating the definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH. However, frequent deviations may indicate a serious problem. Frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied agreement acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly. [Note that there is no mention of Don Oakie's other writings on this subject -- mlf] From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 19:04:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA14566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:04:22 +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 TAA14561 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:04:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip103.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.103]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990622090358.QZO28372.fep2@ip103.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:03:58 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:03:49 GMT Message-ID: <377c511e.2333809@post.tele.dk> References: <199906212101.RAA15862@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:46:33 -0400 skrev Ed Reppert: >At the club here, we have a player whose vision is such that he can't see >to pick cards out of the bidding box Isn't it possible for him to learn to feel the right bid? I think I could do that with closed eyes. Not that there's any need to change a procedure that works, it's more a suggestion that it would perhaps be easier for (near) blind people to learn this. But I have no practical experience, except that there's a man in my club with weak sight (not too bad) who brings his own bidding box. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 20:26:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:26:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from garfield.ecats.co.uk (garfield.ecats.co.uk [194.205.153.130]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14717 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:25:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from bridge (212.56.135.66 [212.56.135.66]) by garfield.ecats.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.1960.3) id MS3QW6YB; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:27:37 +0100 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:27:46 +0200 Message-ID: <01BEBCAA.A25479E0.mark@ecats.co.uk> From: Mark Newton Reply-To: "mark@ecats.co.uk" To: "'david-martin@talk21.com'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Law 63B/Law 43B2(b) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:27:45 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Encoding: 6 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You ask, reference the interim ruling on Law 63B: 'Does this interpretation also apply to Law 43B2(b)?' Reply from Ton Kooijman and Grattan Endicott: Yes. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 22:44:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA14948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:44:54 +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 WAA14943 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:44:45 +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 IAA19441 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:44:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id IAA18841; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:44:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 08:44:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906221244.IAA18841@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. > > This player would like the cards called as they are played [except >when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or >at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read >out the calls. > > Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes >cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. > > I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, >legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it >difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. > >-- I don't really understand the problem. Neither of these problems should cause discomfort for the opponents, so, of course, both procedures (calling out cards for someone with vision problems, permitting someone with a (any) handicap to call out bids) would be acceptable. If memory serves, the ACBL even has a policy for its sectional and higher games, that all reasonable help should be provided for anyone who is handicapped in some way. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 22 23:01:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA15008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 23:01:00 +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 XAA15003 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 23:00:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA29075 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:13:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:01:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <012b01bebc75$800417e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:06 PM 6/21/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> I don't see it as being that complicated or difficult. >> >> If I write "15-17 HCP" as my opening 1NT range on my CC, what does >that >> mean? According to the ACBL, it means (a) that I open 1NT on any >balanced >> hand containing 15-17 HCP. IMO, it should mean (b) that I open >1NT on any >> balanced hand which, in my judgment, is equivalent in playing >strength to a >> normal hand of 15-17 HCP. > >Agreed. (b) is actually ACBL policy, tucked away in *Duplicate >Decisions* A deviation, defined as "a bid in which the strength of >the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and >the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump," is permissible >and is not to be treated as a psych. That definition is augmented by >"a bid of a suit in which the length varies by no more than one card >from the agreed or announced length and the hand contains ample >high-card values for the bid in the system being played." These are >Don Oakie's words, by the way. Hmmm... Does DD explain -- or even mention -- the special exception the ACBL has made to this policy in the specific case of 10-12 HCP 1NT openings (which carries an automatic penalty if violated)? I'd love to hear Gary -- or anyone else at the ACBL -- attempt to give a cogent rationale for this exception. >> Bids which are considered to be "based on an implicit agreement" >under (a) >> but not under (b) should fall into a separate category of >"stylistic or >> judgmental tendencies known to partner". IMO, these should be >subject to >> requrirements for disclosure, but should not be subject to >limitations on >> "method" or "system". What's the problem? >> >I don't think we have a problem here, except in defining the >undefinable: When does a deviation (or a psych, for that matter) >become an implicit partnership agreement? I don't have a problem with what constitutes an implicit agreement. I think the problem is the failure to distinguish between implicit agreements about style and judgment, which are subject to disclosure requirements (L40E/L75) but not to restriction (L40D), and implicit agreements about methods, which the ACBL may (in their own opinion, but that's for a different thread) regulate as they see fit. 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 Jun 23 00:15:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:15:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA17426 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:15:05 +1000 (EST) 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 PAA10183 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:14:52 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA00763 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:14:37 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:14:36 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA28355 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:14:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:14:34 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199906221414.PAA28355@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I don't really understand the problem. Neither of these problems > should cause discomfort for the opponents, so, of course, both > procedures (calling out cards for someone with vision problems, > permitting someone with a (any) handicap to call out bids) would > be acceptable. If memory serves, the ACBL even has a policy for > its sectional and higher games, that all reasonable help should be > provided for anyone who is handicapped in some way. > Tony (aka ac342) Problems might occur if the opponents were disconcerted by having to follow extra procedures, especially if the handicapped players were not sympathetic to (do not appreciate) opponents discomfort. 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 Jun 23 00:23:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA17492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:23:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f157.hotmail.com [207.82.251.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA17487 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:23:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 27637 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jun 1999 14:23:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19990622142313.27634.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by wy1lg.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:23:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:23:12 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: "John S. Nichols" >At 11:08 AM 6/21/99 , David Stevenson wrote: >> >>Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. >>This player would like the cards called as they are played [except >>when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, >>or >>at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner >>to read >>out the calls. >> >>Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding >>boxes >>cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. >>I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, >>legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find >>it >>difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. >> > >There are several players at our club with various conditions that >require >adjustments in the physical environment. We are happy to >accommodate >them. > Same here - we have one person who asks that all calls and cards be called out. You get used to it quickly. She also asks the person who plays the cards the previous round to sort them for her after playing (which is unusual around here). That is *not* easy to get used to (from personal embarassment) (She has about 10% vision, so she can see the cards 2" in front of her face, but will still get the blacks and the reds occasionally mixed up, so she asks for them to be sorted - another argument for 4-colour cards). >In addition, here in the USA we have a law known as the "Americans >with >Disabilities Act" that makes these requests __VERY__ >enforceable--in the >courts. > I.e. Both it is very (RL-)legally enforcable to ask and expect these requirements, *and* it is probably very illegal to write CoCs that disallow those requests. And what you do about the bidding-box impaired meeting the bidding-box required is very simple - "Director!" You call and bidding-box the bids, with the director or kibitzer pulling the called bid of the box for the person who can't. Clumsy, but very easily workable. And as far as the FLB is concerned, (from memory here) there is nothing in the book requiring bidding boxes or disallowing called cards (memory aids? - but that's very tenuous), just SO regulations. If you're in a country with anti-discrimination laws (like the USA and Canada), those regulations had better allow for it :-). Now, what happens with screens (having just kibitzed my first screen game at Easter, so I now understand what's going on)? How do you do screens while still requiring audible bids and explanations (at least to one player)? Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 01:22:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:22:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from hgea.org (hgea01.hgea.org [205.172.0.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17738 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:22:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [205.172.0.139] (ppp139.hgea.org [205.172.0.139]) by hgea.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id FAA12066 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:22:23 -1000 (HST) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:22:23 -1000 (HST) X-Sender: lmitch@hgea01.hgea.org Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: lmitch@hgea.org (Linda Mitchell) Subject: vacation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Please note I will be away, so I want to temporarily stop my email. Thanks Linda From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 01:53:18 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:53:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA17833 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:53:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA25347; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:51:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-37.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.101) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma025247; Tue Jun 22 10:51:04 1999 Message-ID: <004c01bebcc7$31563680$659c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: " CHYAH E BURGHARD" , Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:52:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Chyah wrote:(excellent article heavily snipped)> I have sat on several committees where people refused to call out their > cards against a blind person. The blind person was the declarer and > the dummy politely called out the opponents cards only to later be > accused of modulating their voice to help the blind person know which > way to correctly play the hand. > With a regulation in force, people are compelled to call out their own cards. I find myself appalled that some players could be so insensitive to refuse to make such a reasonable accomodation to a handicapped individual. To then bring what amounts to an ethical accusation against that party's partner makes it difficult to contemplate lunch! I sincerely hope that thorough conduct and ethics investigations were launched against the pairs which appealed. It would seem that their initial recalcitrance rises to the level of a ZT violation. I think I would have found 90A in my law book and fined them a board for every board on which they persisted in their uncooperativeness. Bridge is a game for civilised people. They clearly were not. I only wish I still had the opportunity to play against some of the "handicapped" folks whose company I was able to enjoy over the years who now shuffle and deal with the angels. If accomodation to physical limitations is not "legal" then we need a new lawbook forthwith. I would very much like to hear our WBF Laws contingent weigh in on this. > The ACBL has little cards that travel with the hearing impaired > and visually impaired to help identify situations. However, a great > number of the disabled/impaired do not wish to identify themselves; > they wish to blend in. Whilst this is understandable, it does make it difficult for others to help. I do not want to win because someone cannot hear me or cannot see what card I have played. Please help all of us who want a fair contest to avoid unknowingly taking such an unfair advantage. (On the other hand beware...I still may psych or false card or give flase count or preference, the same as I would against any opponent...no more, no less. I want you to have to beat the best I have to offer, and use all of what you have!) One of the great merits of bridge is that it is a lifetime sport. So long as the mind is there, we can play until the end of life. As all of us age, we can hope to live long enough to have to cope with ailments and surmount many of them. Let us not even consider extending less courtesy to those who must face them at a younger age, than we might desire for ourselves in our geriatric years. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 01:56:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA17866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:56:52 +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 BAA17859 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 01:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10wSuN-000Emn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:56:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:53:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Handicaps References: <199906221244.IAA18841@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199906221244.IAA18841@freenet3.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >I wrote: >> Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. >> >> This player would like the cards called as they are played [except >>when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or >>at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read >>out the calls. >> >> Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes >>cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. >> >> I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, >>legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I don't really understand the problem. Neither of these problems >should cause discomfort for the opponents, .... Of course, if they caused no discomfort for opponents then it would be a non-problem. However, please accept as a premise that it does cause problems for some opponents. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 02:08:27 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:08:27 +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 CAA18051 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:08:21 +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; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:06:41 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <377c511e.2333809@post.tele.dk> References: <199906212101.RAA15862@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:03:11 -0400 To: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Handicaps Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:03 AM -0400 6/22/99, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >Isn't it possible for him to learn to feel the right bid? I think >I could do that with closed eyes. I have no idea. :-) However, I suspect it would be difficult, given the quality and variety of the boxes the club provides. [snip] >But I have no practical experience, except that there's a man in >my club with weak sight (not too bad) who brings his own bidding >box. This guy doesn't bring his own box . 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/AwUBN2+08b2UW3au93vOEQJVmACgtddlVXKt0TehnmwZ9v0zIAcsbjsAoNIS /4hv04ikKnEJRmPd3tQtXseq =bqK9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 02:30:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:30:30 +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 CAA18111 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:30:13 +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 MAA02286 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:30:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA09783 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:30:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906221630.MAA09783@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > "Having no spades, partner" = "Oh look, partner, declarer has more > spades than I expected." It is not difficult to train oneself to say "Having none?" whenever partner shows out. Yes, even when the whole table can see that the thirteenth has just been played. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 02:58:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:58:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18166 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:58:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA06448; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:57:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-37.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.101) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006372; Tue Jun 22 11:56:48 1999 Message-ID: <008b01bebcd0$607ee160$659c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:57:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 >Craig Senior wrote: >>While we are expressing opinions, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why >>the ROW doesn't make use of the opt out in 61B. How can preventing an >>established revoke be a bad thing? For once the ACBL got one dead right. >>This whole question is obviated if you just allow "having no spades >>partner." > (DWS)> "Having no spades, partner" = "Oh look, partner, declarer has more >spades than I expected." > For which we have Law 16 and others in flagrant cases. Used mechanically and consistently whenever partner has shown out, it may communicate little UI; just the rather obvious message "I notice you didn't follow suit partner." That would seem to be AI derived from play. 99% of all games are low level; most players therein are not very subtle about sending UI. The guilty will most often convict themselves rather readily. This is no more a problem than allowing a question during the auction surely. But then that has a different attitude on your side of the pond too, doesn't it. Maybe ACBL does NOT stand for Absolutely Chockfullof Bridge Lawyers after all...imagine, policies that seen less paranoid over UI! :-)) My point is that allowing a mechanical penalty for an infraction that is preventable seems a more costly disruption of the game than the potential for some operators to try to get away with a little OBM. (Is that one on your abbreviation list yet btw?). My compliments on expressing your point of view so clearly and tersely...another area in which you may be able to instruct. :-) Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 03:11:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:11:21 +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 DAA18204 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:11:15 +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 NAA15647 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906221711.NAA03884@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 21 Jun 1999 23:00:25 +0100) Subject: Re: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Craig Senior wrote: >> While we are expressing opinions, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why >> the ROW doesn't make use of the opt out in 61B. How can preventing an >> established revoke be a bad thing? For once the ACBL got one dead right. >> This whole question is obviated if you just allow "having no spades >> partner." > "Having no spades, partner" = "Oh look, partner, declarer has more > spades than I expected." The solution to this is to require the inquiry to be used at all times; this would avoid transmitting UI. It could be treated similarly to the skip-bid rule; you are not required to ask, but it is a violation to ask sometimes and not at othet times. But who does this? When the N-S auction goes 1NT-2C-2S-4S, and West has four spades, West must still ask East "No spades, partner?" when East shows out on the second spade. If West doesn't ask here, then when West has three spades and asks, this will be clear UI that South has five. In contrast, players who aren't consistent with the use of skip-bid warnings often omit them at normally harmless times such as 1NT-3NT and 1S-2H-3H-4NT. Few players neglect the skip-bid warning when opening a Roman or Flannery 2D, when the missing warning could remind partner that 2D is not a preempt. -- 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 Jun 23 03:16:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:16:25 +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 DAA18224 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:16:13 +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 KAA04625 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ef01bebcd2$e40772c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:13:23 -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: > >>it should mean (b) that I open 1NT on any > >> balanced hand which, in my judgment, is equivalent in playing > >>strength to a normal hand of 15-17 HCP. > Marvin French wrote: > > > >Agreed. (b) is actually ACBL policy, tucked away in *Duplicate > >Decisions* A deviation, defined as "a bid in which the strength of > >the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and > >the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump," is permissible > >and is not to be treated as a psych. That definition is augmented by > >"a bid of a suit in which the length varies by no more than one card > >from the agreed or announced length and the hand contains ample > >high-card values for the bid in the system being played." These are > >Don Oakie's words, by the way. > > Hmmm... Does DD explain -- or even mention -- the special exception the > ACBL has made to this policy in the specific case of 10-12 HCP 1NT openings > (which carries an automatic penalty if violated)? I'd love to hear Gary -- > or anyone else at the ACBL -- attempt to give a cogent rationale for this > exception. > I have been looking for something about "automatic penalty," and cannot find it. . There is nothing about this in *Duplicate Decisions*, on the ACBL website under Regulations, or in the ACBLScor Tech Files. Maybe I missed it. Please give a source for such statements, as searching for things like this is very time-consuming. The GCC says, under allowed responses and rebids: "...no conventional responses or rebids are allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges). Further a conventional defense against a conventional defense is not permitted." That presumably refers to the range shown on the cc, not to occasional minor deviations from that range. Moreover, the only "penalty" is that conventions aren't allowed if the cc says something like 9-11 HCP or 12-17 HCP. I have noticed that many users of weak bids deviate in a direction lighter than what is on the cc with great regularity. That should not be condoned. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 03:18:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:18:08 +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 DAA18240 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:17:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from kapustin (ppp02.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.102]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA24641 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:17:23 +0300 (EEST) Message-Id: <199906221717.UAA24641@hunter2.int.kiev.ua> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:13:21 +0300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1154 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Robin Barker > > I don't really understand the problem. Neither of these problems > > should cause discomfort for the opponents, so, of course, both > > procedures (calling out cards for someone with vision problems, > > permitting someone with a (any) handicap to call out bids) would > > be acceptable. If memory serves, the ACBL even has a policy for > > its sectional and higher games, that all reasonable help should be > > provided for anyone who is handicapped in some way. > > Tony (aka ac342) > > Problems might occur if the opponents were disconcerted by having to > follow extra procedures, especially if the handicapped players were > not sympathetic to (do not appreciate) opponents discomfort. > > Robin Another aspect of the problem: The bidding boxes are used, but all bids are called. Player calls 2H but pulls the bidding card 3S. TD! AI? UI? PP? What about the pause (for thought?) between 2H and 3S? What Lows should be used: L25A? L25B? L81C8? L84A? Sergey Kapustin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 03:38:34 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:38:34 +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 DAA18276 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:38:24 +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; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:36:43 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00bd01bebc84$fbea64e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:32:16 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Marv, My comments are probably better directed to the CTD, but I don't have his email handy, so you get stuck with 'em. :-) At 3:58 AM -0400 6/22/99, Marvin L. French wrote: >I asked ACBL Chief TD to point me to, or provide me with, the current ACBL >policy in regard to psychs. His reply: > >"I have attached the statement in "Duplicate Decisions" which pertains to >Psychs. While "Duplicate Decisions" is mainly directed at club directors, >tournament directors also refer to and use the policy and procedure >statements (such as those on psychs) in making decisions at >tournaments although they may have and use additional or other source >material. " It seems to me that _all_ places where ACBL policy is written down should be available to the membership. There should be a list of what these things are. For example, _Duplicate Decisions_ is a book. It's listed in both the ACBL catalog and Baron-Barclay's catalog. In neither place is it described as a publication delineating official ACBL policy. [snip] >ACBL'S POLICY ON PSYCHS: Psychs are regulated by taking disciplinary >action against a player who disrupts a game with frequent, random psychs. >The Board of Director has defined types of disruptive bidding that make >the offenders subject to penalty. The following definitions and >explanations should prove helpful to all Directors trying to enforce this >regulation. > >Excessive Psychic Bidding -- When three or more psychic initial actions by >members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are >called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate >the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. Nota Bene: "possibility" > A presumption of >inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate >that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that >they happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate >for psyches. Why "unusually appropriate"? What makes a hand "unusually appropriate" for a psych? If I pick up, in one session, three hands that are "normally appropriate" but not "unusually appropriate" for a psych, and I psych all of them, am I guilty of "excessive psyching"? >The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create >partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience. >(If partner opens 1 three times in one session with two or fewer >diamonds, partner finds it hard to take any 1 opening bid seriously.) Heh. In the version of Precision I play with my regular partner, opening 1D on as few as 2 diamonds is a defined part of the system. That aside, if my CC says "3 or more diamonds", is opening with 2 a "gross distortion" of my distribution? I don't think so. This section isn't talking about psyches - it's talking about treatments (or deviations - see below). >When the psychic bidder's partner, because of prior usages, has a better >chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is presumptive >evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, and the >result of the board may be adjusted. > >[Some opponents would not catch a psych when looking at 30 HCP, so taken >literally this sentence would bar psychs entirely. I don't think the >writer realized what he was saying -- mlf] It seems to me the prosecution can only assert "prior usages" if there's a record of same. And such record would have to be germane. The fact that partner has psyched a weak two bid three times in the last two sessions is _no_ evidence of an "undisclosed agreement" to psych a one spade opening. This seems obvious, but I wonder if most TDs would agree. :-) >Frivolous Psychic Bidding -- Any psychic action inspired by a spirit of >malicious mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous. > >Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding -- Action apparently designed to give the >opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, psychs against >pairs or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players and psychs >used merely to create action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike >psychic bidding. Hm. Is a psych against novices _by_ a novice unsportsmanlike? >NOTE TO CLUB MANAGERS: Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled >psychs by saying that the burden of proof will be on the player, if he >makes more than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not >using excessive, frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Also, the policy defines "excessive" psyches as "possibly three or more in one sesssion". Presumably even _one_ psych could be frivolous or unsportsmanlike. Yet we are supposed to wait until there've been three, and _then_ say "prove you're not being unsportsmanlike". Pfui. >Disciplinary action ( not score adjustments; these should be made only >when the result was affected because the partner may have allowed for the >psych >due to previous experience) should be taken against a player whose bidding >does not conform to these regulations. This is incomplete. Taken in toto, it should read "Disciplinary action ... should be taken against a player who cannot prove that his bidding conforms to these regulations." >PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR DIRECTOR ATTENTION: > >Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or >suit length is by definition a psych. However, some psychs are disruptive >to the game while others involve bridge tactics No. Some psyches may be disruptive to _opponent's methods_ - that's not the same thing as "disruptive to the game." Repeated frivolous or unsportsmanlike psyches may be disuptive to the game, though. >These definitions should help to distinguish a psych that warrants >disciplinary action or, at the least, attention by the Director, from >those that are an integral part of the game. All psyches are "an integral part of the game." Law 40. > A Tactical Bid is a psych Not necessarily true. >that is made to paint a picture in an >opponent's and partner's mind that will cause them to play you for a >holding that you >do not have, enabling you to succeed at the contract to which you were >inevitably headed. > > Example: After partner opens with 1*S*, responder bids 2*D* to try to >ward off a diamond lead on the way to 4*S* holding: *S*QJxxx *H*Ax >*D*xxx *C*KQx. Hm. In my system, a 2/1 call in a minor requires 10 or more points and 4 or more diamonds. Is the hand above a "gross distortion" of those requirements? I don't think so. A tactical bid, yes. A psych, no. >Or, you might cuebid an ace you don't have on your way to six of a suit. > NOTE: Frequent use of tactics similar to this will develop an implicit >partnership agreement which requires an Alert. It seems that frequent use of _any_ call not an explicit agreement will make it an "implicit agreement which requires an Alert", even if that call arises from "general bridge knowledge." [snip] >A Deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb, 1978, ACBL BULLETIN) as a bid >in which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced >strength, and the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also >defined a Deviation as a bid of a suit in which the length of the suit >varies by no more than one card from the agreed or announced length and >the hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system being >played. If either of these situations occur, it is easy to see by >repeating the definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement >of honor strength or suit length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH. >However, frequent deviations may indicate a serious problem. >Frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied >agreement >acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly. A "serious problem," indeed! To wit, that the pair have not adequately discussed their system. Nothing to do with psyches. I have _Duplicate Decisions_ on order - but it's back-ordered, and I dunno when I'll see it. :-( 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/AwUBN2/KB72UW3au93vOEQLf4gCfU99ret4p70o88F7D40dpqFwYuOoAoIzC CRyX9Spatq0xQKTjcoMVLa+F =kMHf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 03:48:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA18312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:48:15 +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 DAA18307 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:48:08 +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; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:46:29 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990622142313.27634.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:37:46 -0400 To: Michael Farebrother From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Handicaps Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:23 AM -0400 6/22/99, Michael Farebrother wrote: >How do you do screens while >still requiring audible bids and explanations (at least to one player)? Off the top of _my_ head , have a disinterested observer communicate them to the player via some kind of intercom setup. Tape it if you're paranoid. :-) 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/AwUBN2/MVr2UW3au93vOEQKdwwCg87bBpB3EG1NTZHpeU5do4ZUcSLAAn1yA G0B8SxfAugmLdbkT+yZpFpl0 =9OGk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 04:25:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:25:25 +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 EAA18461 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:25:18 +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 LAA16956; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:24:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199906221824.LAA16956@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Jun 1999 13:32:16 PDT." Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:24:35 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > >These definitions should help to distinguish a psych that warrants > >disciplinary action or, at the least, attention by the Director, from > >those that are an integral part of the game. > > All psyches are "an integral part of the game." Law 40. Law 40 doesn't say psychs are an integral part of the game; it just says you're allowed to make them. In any case, this was probably a poor choice of words on the author's part; but I think he was trying to make a valid point. Some psychs (such as the lead-inhibiting bid provided in the succeeding example---whether you call this a "psych" or not is beside the point) have a specific purpose in mind. Some bids that some might consider "psychs" (again, whether you do or not is irrelevant) are just manufactured bids to try to do the best possible thing with a hand that's difficult for your system, the way MSC panelists are always bidding 2-card suits to deal with the Bridge World Death Hand. Other psychs are the equivalent of spinning a roulette wheel with a loaded gun attached that will go off at some random time, and hoping it kills your opponents and not you. Those are the ones that can turn the game into a crapshoot (how many gambling metaphors can I mix in one paragraph??) if they're practiced too often. I believe the author's purpose is to try to distinguish these "randomizing" psychs from the purposeful ones, and this is a valid distinction, even if the terminology the author used doesn't conform to how others use those words. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 04:26:55 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA18480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:26:55 +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 EAA18473 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:26:48 +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 OAA17572 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906221826.OAA06176@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199906221717.UAA24641@hunter2.int.kiev.ua> (svk@int.kiev.ua) Subject: Re: Handicaps Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin writes: > Another aspect of the problem: > The bidding boxes are used, but all bids are called. > Player calls 2H but pulls the bidding card 3S. TD! > AI? UI? PP? What about the pause (for thought?) between 2H and 3S? > What Lows should be used: L25A? L25B? L81C8? L84A? This is less of a problem than the usual misbid situations. L25A applies here, because it is clear that the player made a call which he did not intend to make, and would correct it as soon as he became aware of it. In this case, I would allow the player to select either the call he placed on the table or the call he said, whichever he intended to bid. There would be no UI problem unless an opponent called over the withdrawn call, in which case the opponent's called would be UI to the offenders. If offender's partner had already called before the irregularity was discovered, we could have a problem, since L25A could no lopnger be applied. Normally, I would assume that the spoken bid was currect, and the mispull would be MI if it damaged the non-offenders. -- 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 Jun 23 06:51:49 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA18888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:51:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from kallisti.iag.net (mailhub2.iag.net [204.27.210.15]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA18883 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:51:41 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 06:51:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 30774 invoked from network); 22 Jun 1999 20:55:55 -0000 Received: from pm02-071.kism.fl.iag.net (HELO Sotnos) (207.30.80.71) by mailhub2.iag.net with SMTP; 22 Jun 1999 20:55:55 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.16.19990622164939.42f7d596@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: ACBL Psych Policy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:58 AM 6/22/99 -0700, you wrote: > >Excessive Psychic Bidding -- When three or more psychic initial actions by >members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are >called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate >the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. A presumption of >inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate >that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that >they >happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate >for >psyches. This sounds like what it is i thnk burden of proff is on the defendant not the prosecutor. Being guilty because you can't present evidence that those hands where "unusually appropriate for psyches", A simple question just how do you get that across when statements you make are concidered selfserving. Guess you on each and one of those boards in question needs to have the feild bidding the same psyche in an amount that matches ACBL's definition of LA. > >The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create >partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience. >(If partner opens 1 three times in one session with two or fewer >diamonds, partner finds it hard to take any 1 opening bid seriously.) >When the psychic bidder's partner, because of prior usages, has a better >chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is presumptive >evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, and the >result of the board may be adjusted. > >[Some opponents would not catch a psych when looking at 30 HCP, so taken >literally this sentence would bar psychs entirely. I don't think the >writer >realized what he was saying -- mlf] > >Frivolous Psychic Bidding -- Any psychic action inspired by a spirit of >malicious mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous. > >Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding -- Action apparently designed to give the >opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, psychs against >pairs >or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players and psychs >used merely to create action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike >psychic bidding. > Plse ACBL put it in 1 sentence saying "Psyches and tactial bids not allowed". >NOTE TO CLUB MANAGERS: Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled >psychs by saying that the burden of proof will be on the player, if he >makes more than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not >using excessive, frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding. >Disciplinary action ( not score adjustments; these should be made only >when >the result was affected because the partner may have allowed for the psych >due to previous experience) should be taken against a player whose bidding >does not conform to these regulations. > This statement violates L40A clearly IMO >PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR DIRECTOR ATTENTION: > >Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or >suit length is by definition a psych. However, some psychs are disruptive >to the game while others involve bridge tactics > Where in the law do you see the definition for what is tactial and "ok" and what is something the cat draged in to show you????? Is a tactical/psyche ok if it is Zia that makes it but disallowed if it's an unknown to the TD/AC??. I personally prefer to have the SAME rules apply to all regardless of fame or lack of fame to the players in question. >These definitions should help to distinguish a psych that warrants >disciplinary action or, at the least, attention by the Director, from >those >that are an integral part of the game. > > A Tactical Bid is a psych that is made to paint a picture in an >opponent's >andpartner's mind that will cause them to play you for a holding that you >do not have, enabling you to succeed at the contract to which you were >inevitably headed. > > Example: After partner opens with 1*S*, responder bids 2*D* to try to >ward off a diamond lead on the way to 4*S* holding: *S*QJxxx *H*Ax >*D*xxx >*C*KQx. > Or, you might cuebid an ace you don't >have on your way to six of a suit. > > NOTE: Frequent use of tactics similar to this will develop an implicit >partnership agreement which requires an Alert. > >A Waiting Bid is generally a forcing bid made by responder to allow him >time to learn more about partner's opening hand. This type of call is only >rarely a psych since in most cases the suit length is not grossly >misstated. > >Example: Over a 1*S* opening, responder bids 2*C* on: *S*Axxxx, *H*xxxx >*D*xx *C*AQ. The hand is too good for 2*S* and not good enough to force >to >game. The 2*C* bid is a waiting bid. If opener rebids 2*S*, responder >can >now bid 3*S* -- invitational. Out of this we read that the only allowed psyches are those that you make when having an already known trumpsuit together. > >A Deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb, 1978, ACBL BULLETIN) as a bid >in >which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or >announced >strength, and the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also >defined a Deviation as a bid of a suit in which the length of the suit >varies by no more than one card from the agreed or announced length and >the >hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system being >played. If either of these situations occur, it is easy to see by >repeating the definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement >of honor strength or suit length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH. >However, frequent deviations may indicate a serious problem. Frequent >deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied agreement >acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly. > What about those extremly good 9pt 1NT openings that gets so harshly penalized that they have been outlawed? A hand that is within a J of stated agreements is just as ACBL once said a deviation. Robert From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 08:34:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:34:06 +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 IAA19187 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:33:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10wZ6w-000Hwe-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:33:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:53:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy References: <00bd01bebc84$fbea64e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Marv wrote: >Heh. In the version of Precision I play with my regular partner, opening 1D >on as few as 2 diamonds is a defined part of the system. That aside, if my >CC says "3 or more diamonds", is opening with 2 a "gross distortion" of my >distribution? I don't think so. This section isn't talking about psyches - >it's talking about treatments (or deviations - see below). One of the most destructive comments to good directing that I have read is the one that the ACBL has said that one card different is a deviation rather than a psyche. This is so often not the case. When players have quoted this regulation they then give examples such as this: xxx AKQT Qxx Kxx and open 1H playing 5-card majors: is this a psyche? No, it isn't, and that proves nothing, about the value of this regulation. It is not a gross distortion, it is a judgement call. AKQTx xxxx Qx Kx So on the next hand someone opens 1H on this hand, playing 5-card majors: is this a psyche? Yes, of course: it is a gross distortion. This one card different thing is just useless. Deciding what is a psyche involves judgement. Of course, it is valuable to point out that a one card deficit is not necessarily a psyche, but using that comment should be tempered with common-sense. If your CC says 3+D, and you open 1D with two diamonds, then there are four possibilities: [1] It is a psyche, such as opening 1D on AKQTx xxxx Qx Kx with intent to mislead. [2] It is a deviation, such as opening 1D on KQx Jxxx KQ Jxxx when playing Precision: the correct bid by your methods is 1NT, but you feel the risk vulnerable on a bad 12-count is such that you look for something else to do. [3] It is a CPU, such as opening 1D on KQx Jxxx KQ Jxxx when playing Precision, where this is the normal opening on such a hand. [4] It is a misbid, because you have mis-sorted your hand, or forgotten which version of Precision you are playing. ------- It is just not good enough to say that a player is one card short therefore it is a deviation. [s] >>PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR DIRECTOR ATTENTION: >> >>Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or >>suit length is by definition a psych. However, some psychs are disruptive >>to the game while others involve bridge tactics Hehehe. Well, someone has a sense of humour! [s] >> Example: After partner opens with 1*S*, responder bids 2*D* to try to >>ward off a diamond lead on the way to 4*S* holding: *S*QJxxx *H*Ax >>*D*xxx *C*KQx. >Hm. In my system, a 2/1 call in a minor requires 10 or more points and 4 or >more diamonds. Is the hand above a "gross distortion" of those >requirements? I don't think so. A tactical bid, yes. A psych, no. Of course it is a psyche - or if that is your normal reply, then it is a CPU. -- 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 Jun 23 08:34:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA19198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:34:06 +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 IAA19188 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:33:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10wZ6w-000Hwd-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 22:33:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:52:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. References: <199906221711.NAA03884@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906221711.NAA03884@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: >> Craig Senior wrote: >>> While we are expressing opinions, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why >>> the ROW doesn't make use of the opt out in 61B. How can preventing an >>> established revoke be a bad thing? For once the ACBL got one dead right. >>> This whole question is obviated if you just allow "having no spades >>> partner." >> "Having no spades, partner" = "Oh look, partner, declarer has more >> spades than I expected." >The solution to this is to require the inquiry to be used at all times; >this would avoid transmitting UI. Alternatively, get rid of the whole stupid question. I don't think it is missed in the RoW, and that certainly gets rid of the UI problem. > It could be treated similarly to the >skip-bid rule; you are not required to ask, but it is a violation to ask >sometimes and not at othet times. > >But who does this? When the N-S auction goes 1NT-2C-2S-4S, and West has >four spades, West must still ask East "No spades, partner?" when East >shows out on the second spade. If West doesn't ask here, then when West >has three spades and asks, this will be clear UI that South has five. > >In contrast, players who aren't consistent with the use of skip-bid >warnings often omit them at normally harmless times such as 1NT-3NT and >1S-2H-3H-4NT. Few players neglect the skip-bid warning when opening a >Roman or Flannery 2D, when the missing warning could remind partner that >2D is not a preempt. I don't believe this harmless, or acceptable. But policing it is very difficult: how do you propose policing whether people always say "No spades, partner?" How do you propose getting people to ask the whole time when they think it is useless? What is the point of it, anyway? It is merely an anachronism. ----------- Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> "Having no spades, partner" = "Oh look, partner, declarer has more >> spades than I expected." >It is not difficult to train oneself to say "Having none?" whenever >partner shows out. Yes, even when the whole table can see that the >thirteenth has just been played. Very funny. The ACBL can't get everyone to use the Stop card, and even people that do don't use it before 1NT - 3NT: how do you expect to persuade them to ask a totally useless and inane question? Players whose partner's never revoke will be dead chuffed by this. Of course, Steve, you or I could train ourselves to do it, but try it on all the other bridge players. And why? -- 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 Jun 23 10:08:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:08:36 +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 KAA19511 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:08:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm6-13.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.210]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA24088 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:08:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3770259A.592BA8CA@pinehurst.net> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:08:58 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: re:handicaps Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6A0C41BDB5AC72A07633041F" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------6A0C41BDB5AC72A07633041F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, David, I seem to hit the wrong reply icon. I meant to send this to all.... --------------6A0C41BDB5AC72A07633041F Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <376F1662.3B300E86@pinehurst.net> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:51:46 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Handicaps References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We had at a National Tournament a table that had one deaf player and one nearly blind player. The blind player could not use the bid boxes and the deaf player could not hear the bidding. When the director was called to solve the problem, she ruled that the bid boxes would *not* be used! Wonderful, now the deaf player is penalized and livid. Of course, she got a poor board. How simple it would be to extend common courtesy to all the players and ask for cooperation from the table by having a sighted person put the proper card out for the blind player and every player speak their bids. A non-handicapped person at the table should be very able to place the bid card on the table for the person sitting next to them. Happens all the time at our clubs and everyone is happy. If a bridge player isn't capable of being courteous and helpful to someone who has a physical challenge, maybe they shouldn't be in the game. If a player can't concentrate and read out calls, how on earth did this individual learn to play bridge without bid boxes???? I would have zero tolerance for a player who was not eager and willing to help a fellow player enjoy the game. A rule or law should not be necessary, just some human kindness... Nancy David Stevenson wrote: > Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. > > This player would like the cards called as they are played [except > when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or > at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read > out the calls. > > Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes > cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. > > I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, > legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it > difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. > > -- > 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 ~ --------------6A0C41BDB5AC72A07633041F-- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 10:28:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA19537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:28:00 +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 KAA19532 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:27:52 +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 RAA07813 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:27:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012601bebd0f$2edac180$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:27:18 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > Hi, Marv, > > My comments are probably better directed to the CTD, but I don't have his > email handy, so you get stuck with 'em. :-) In my experience, all questions sent to rulings@acbl.org and tournaments@acbl.org have been answered by the CTD. M L. French wrote: > >I asked ACBL Chief TD to point me to, or provide me with, the current ACBL > >policy in regard to psychs. His reply: > > > >"I have attached the statement in "Duplicate Decisions" which pertains to > >Psychs. While "Duplicate Decisions" is mainly directed at club directors, > >tournament directors also refer to and use the policy and procedure > >statements (such as those on psychs) in making decisions at > >tournaments although they may have and use additional or other source > >material. " > > It seems to me that _all_ places where ACBL policy is written down should > be available to the membership. There should be a list of what these things > are. For example, _Duplicate Decisions_ is a book. It's listed in both the > ACBL catalog and Baron-Barclay's catalog. In neither place is it described > as a publication delineating official ACBL policy. Semantics here, perhaps. While DD is not the document that defines ACBL regulations (the minutes of the BoD do that), it is one place where some ACBL regulations are included, which would make the DD authoritative enough. The front of my DD says "Part II has been revised to update Directors on ACBL regulations." That sounds pretty official. > > ACBL'S POLICY ON PSYCHS: Psychs are regulated by taking disciplinary > >action against a player who disrupts a game with frequent, random psychs. > >The Board of Director has defined types of disruptive bidding that make > >the offenders subject to penalty. The following definitions and > >explanations should prove helpful to all Directors trying to enforce this > >regulation. > > > >Excessive Psychic Bidding -- When three or more psychic initial actions by > >members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are > >called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate > >the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. > > Nota Bene: "possibility" Yes, it is not *prima facie* evidence of a violation, as many TDs assume. > > > A presumption of > >inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate > >that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that > >they happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate > >for psyches. > > Why "unusually appropriate"? What makes a hand "unusually appropriate" for > a psych? If I pick up, in one session, three hands that are "normally > appropriate" but not "unusually appropriate" for a psych, and I psych all > of them, am I guilty of "excessive psyching"? I think you're reading this wrong. I'm sure that "unusually appropriate" modifies "string," not "hands." The intention is, I believe, "an unusually appropriate string of hands." > > >The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create > >partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience. > >(If partner opens 1 three times in one session with two or fewer > >diamonds, partner finds it hard to take any 1 opening bid seriously.) > > Heh. In the version of Precision I play with my regular partner, opening 1D > on as few as 2 diamonds is a defined part of the system. That aside, if my > CC says "3 or more diamonds", is opening with 2 a "gross distortion" of my > distribution? I don't think so. This section isn't talking about psyches - > it's talking about treatments (or deviations - see below). It is not a gross distortion, but if you do it regularly, then.... > > >When the psychic bidder's partner, because of prior usages, has a better > >chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is presumptive > >evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, and the > >result of the board may be adjusted. > > > >[Some opponents would not catch a psych when looking at 30 HCP, so taken > >literally this sentence would bar psychs entirely. I don't think the > >writer realized what he was saying -- mlf] > > It seems to me the prosecution can only assert "prior usages" if > there's a record of same. And such record would have to be germane. The > fact that partner has psyched a weak two bid three times in the last two > sessions is _no_ evidence of an "undisclosed agreement" to psych a one > spade opening. This seems obvious, but I wonder if most TDs would agree. :-) > > >Frivolous Psychic Bidding -- Any psychic action inspired by a spirit of > >malicious mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous. > > > >Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding -- Action apparently designed to give the > >opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, psychs against > >pairs or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players and psychs > >used merely to create action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike > >psychic bidding. > > Hm. Is a psych against novices _by_ a novice unsportsmanlike? No. Only in party bridge. > > >NOTE TO CLUB MANAGERS: Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled > >psychs by saying that the burden of proof will be on the player, if he > >makes more than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not > >using excessive, frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding. > > "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" "To prove" should be "to demonstrate," and I hope that is how a TD would interpret this poorly-worded regulation. > > Also, the policy defines "excessive" psyches as "possibly three or more in > one sesssion". Presumably even _one_ psych could be frivolous or > unsportsmanlike. Yet we are supposed to wait until there've been three, and > _then_ say "prove you're not being unsportsmanlike". Pfui. Not understood (on second martini) > > >Disciplinary action ( not score adjustments; these should be made only > >when the result was affected because the partner may have allowed for the > >psych > >due to previous experience) should be taken against a player whose bidding > >does not conform to these regulations. > > This is incomplete. Taken in toto, it should read "Disciplinary action ... > should be taken against a player who cannot prove that his bidding > conforms to these regulations." Don't put words into their mouths. > > >PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR DIRECTOR ATTENTION: > > > >Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or > >suit length is by definition a psych. However, some psychs are disruptive > >to the game while others involve bridge tactics > > No. Some psyches may be disruptive to _opponent's methods_ - that's not the > same thing as "disruptive to the game." Repeated frivolous or > unsportsmanlike psyches may be disuptive to the game, though. > > >These definitions should help to distinguish a psych that warrants > >disciplinary action or, at the least, attention by the Director, from > >those that are an integral part of the game. > > All psyches are "an integral part of the game." Law 40. Not those that are based on a partnership understanding, per L40. > > > A Tactical Bid is a psych > > Not necessarily true. > > >that is made to paint a picture in an > >opponent's and partner's mind that will cause them to play you for a > >holding that you > >do not have, enabling you to succeed at the contract to which you were > >inevitably headed. > > > > Example: After partner opens with 1*S*, responder bids 2*D* to try to > >ward off a diamond lead on the way to 4*S* holding: *S*QJxxx *H*Ax > >*D*xxx *C*KQx. > > Hm. In my system, a 2/1 call in a minor requires 10 or more points and 4 or > more diamonds. Is the hand above a "gross distortion" of those > requirements? I don't think so. A tactical bid, yes. A psych, no. It's a gross distortion of what the bid implies, IMO, hence a psych. > > >Or, you might cuebid an ace you don't have on your way to six of a suit. > > > NOTE: Frequent use of tactics similar to this will develop an implicit > >partnership agreement which requires an Alert. > > It seems that frequent use of _any_ call not an explicit agreement will > make it an "implicit agreement which requires an Alert", even if that call > arises from "general bridge knowledge." > Just the opposite. A call that arises from general bridge knowledge and experience does not constitute an implicit partnership agreement. However, a 2/1 response with xxx in the suit is not part of general knowledge. > > >A Deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb, 1978, ACBL BULLETIN) as a bid > >in which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced > >strength, and the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also > >defined a Deviation as a bid of a suit in which the length of the suit > >varies by no more than one card from the agreed or announced length and > >the hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system being > >played. If either of these situations occur, it is easy to see by > >repeating the definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement > >of honor strength or suit length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH. > >However, frequent deviations may indicate a serious problem. > >Frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied > >agreement > >acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly. > > A "serious problem," indeed! To wit, that the pair have not adequately > discussed their system. Nothing to do with psyches. *Non sequitur,* IMO, (on the 2-1/2 martini) > > I have _Duplicate Decisions_ on order - but it's back-ordered, and I dunno > when I'll see it. :-( ALL ACBL regulations should be listed on the ACBL website, and you should not have to order DD or the ACBLScor program to see them (where they are not complete, anyway). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 16:34:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA20021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:34:52 +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 QAA20016 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:34:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id HAA24957 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 07:33:51 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 23 Jun 99 07:33 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) 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: <012b01bebc75$800417e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com) wrote: > I don't think we have a problem here, except in defining the > undefinable: When does a deviation (or a psych, for that matter) > become an implicit partnership agreement? > Not necessarily "agreement" but it can become an understanding pretty quickly for common situations. I wonder how people would feel about completing "Style Cards" in addition to CCs (Style cards need not be identical for members of a partnership). Example of some questions that might be asked (very draft). Using a scale 1=almost never to 5=very frequent how often do you: - make what are generally considered aggressive bids? - make what are generally considered cautious bids? - downgrade HCPs based on poor intermediates? - upgrade HCPs based on good intermediates? - psyche - baby psyche (- forget your agreements) (- poach the play of the hand from partner) Please rank the following by how important you consider them to bidding decisions (perhaps 3 questions eg when opening, uncontested, contested auction)? HCP Distribution Hand Texture LoTT LTC This could help solve the CPU problem as well as providing assistance to TDs on UI cases &c (obviously it could also open up a can of MI worms). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 20:36:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA20296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:36:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f123.hotmail.com [207.82.251.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA20291 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:36:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 88001 invoked by uid 0); 23 Jun 1999 10:36:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19990623103606.88000.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:36:04 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: Norman Scorbie To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 03:36:04 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote >Not necessarily "agreement" but it can become an understanding pretty >quickly for common situations. I wonder how people would feel about >completing "Style Cards" in addition to CCs (Style cards need not be >identical for members of a partnership). > >Example of some questions that might be asked (very draft). > >Using a scale 1=almost never to 5=very frequent how often do you: >- make what are generally considered aggressive bids? >- make what are generally considered cautious bids? >- downgrade HCPs based on poor intermediates? >- upgrade HCPs based on good intermediates? >- psyche >- baby psyche >(- forget your agreements) >(- poach the play of the hand from partner) > >Please rank the following by how important you consider them to bidding >decisions (perhaps 3 questions eg when opening, uncontested, contested >auction)? > >HCP >Distribution >Hand Texture >LoTT >LTC > >This could help solve the CPU problem as well as providing assistance to >TDs on UI cases &c (obviously it could also open up a can of MI worms). > >Tim West-Meads > Lordy, what a splendid idea. I think that possibly there should also be 'life-style' cards, whereupon players give details of their social, family and educational background, as well as their employment and interests, so that opponents have full disclosure of their attitudes and behavioural patterns. This, of course, also opens up a marketing opportunity for sponsoring organizations, who could sell enormous suitcases to carry around all these various cards... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 22:13:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:13:54 +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 WAA20529 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:13:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA22671 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:26:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990623081417.0068e470@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:14:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy In-Reply-To: <00bd01bebc84$fbea64e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:58 AM 6/22/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >I asked ACBL Chief TD to point me to, or provide me with, the current ACBL >policy in regard to psychs. His reply: > >"I have attached the statement in "Duplicate Decisions" which pertains to >Psychs. While "Duplicate Decisions" is mainly directed at club directors, >tournament directors also refer to and use the policy and procedure >statements (such as those on psychs) in making decisions at >tournaments although they may have and use additional or other source >material. " So Gary is, in effect, admitting that the "official" policy -- or rather, from what he says, policies, which one depending on which publication the TD has happened to read most recently -- is distributed to club directors and tournament directors, and remains undisclosed to the membership at large which is expected to abide by them. >So, the following is the presumed official ACBL policy on psychs (perhaps >muddied a bit by Gary's "although"). I have quoted parts of it before on >BLML, but here it is in one piece. I feel that it is not so restrictive as >is generally believed, if you overlook the second sentence. The trouble >comes from overzealous TDs, perhaps those who "use additional or other >source material.": Restrictive is as restrictive does. I find the policy below so amgiguous of interpretation that it can be applied as restrictively as the person applying it chooses. >GENERAL GUIDELINES: A player may make any call or any play (including >an >intentionally misleading one that departs from commonly accepted or >previously announced conventional practice) without prior announcement, >provided it is not based on a partnership understanding. In other words, >a >player can make any bid that will fool partner and his opponents equally. >However, ACBL, or other sponsoring organizations, control psychs by >controlling the conventional usages which may impact them. So players who wish to psych are responsible for knowing in advance "how much" (whatever it means to quantify this, as required by the use of "equally") their opponents will be fooled. > ACBL regulations prohibit psychs depending on the convention chart in >use >for the event. Please note the DISALLOWED section of the appropriate >chart. > >While psychic bids are an integral part of bridge, a player does not have >the right to psych as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys >doing so. A series of tops and bottoms so earned by one pair can unfairly >affect the final results of a tournament. God forbid we should let anyone get away with putting their enjoyment of the game ahead of their score. If this is justified on the grounds that the odd results thus generated can unfairly affect the results, what do we have to say on the same subject to the novice pairs who want to play in Flight A? >ACBL'S POLICY ON PSYCHS: Psychs are regulated by taking disciplinary >action against a player who disrupts a game with frequent, random psychs. >The Board of Director has defined types of disruptive bidding that make >the offenders subject to penalty. The following definitions and >explanations should prove helpful to all Directors trying to enforce this >regulation. > >Excessive Psychic Bidding -- When three or more psychic initial actions by >members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are >called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate >the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. A presumption of >inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate >that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that >they >happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate >for >psyches. If I judge a particular hand to be "unusually appropriate" for a psych, and the regulators disagree with me, whose judgment controls? You know the answer to that one. >The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create >partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience. >(If partner opens 1 three times in one session with two or fewer >diamonds, partner finds it hard to take any 1 opening bid seriously.) >When the psychic bidder's partner, because of prior usages, has a better >chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is presumptive >evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, and the >result of the board may be adjusted. But wouldn't we all agree that if I know that my partner psyched once two years ago, and the opponents don't know that he has ever psyched, I have a better chance of "catching" the psych than they do? How is "a better chance of catching a psych" any different from the widely-believed "one psych per partnership per lifetime" rule? >[Some opponents would not catch a psych when looking at 30 HCP, so taken >literally this sentence would bar psychs entirely. I don't think the >writer >realized what he was saying -- mlf] I have had a problem from the beginning with those who have said "well, that's what the policy says, but it doesn't really mean that". If the writer didn't realize what he was saying, shouldn't it have been corrected somewhere, sometime? >Frivolous Psychic Bidding -- Any psychic action inspired by a spirit of >malicious mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous. Which brings us back to the Oakie article, where he says, in effect, that a psych is, by consensus, a losing tactic, leaving the door open for ruling against any psych whatsoever as "inspired by a... lack of will to win". >Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding -- Action apparently designed to give the >opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, It seems to me that most psychs involve giving your opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score when your judgment tells you they won't take it. But more to the point, if you *don't* give your opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, the ACBL calls that a "risk-free psych", and risk-free psychs are absolutely banned. So if your psych gives the opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, it's illegal, and if it doesn't, it's illegal. Move over, Joseph Heller, the ACBL has taken over. >psychs against >pairs >or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players So I'm responsible for knowing whether my opponents are (a) in contention, or (b) inexperienced. If I psych against a pair which then turns out to be either, I'm in violation. >and psychs >used merely to create action at the table are examples of unsportsmanlike >psychic bidding. So I may not judge, as I could in any other game, that creating action works in my favor in a given situation. I must have some justification for my bid beyond "merely" creating action. Like what, I wonder. >NOTE TO CLUB MANAGERS: Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled >psychs by saying that the burden of proof will be on the player, if he >makes more than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not >using excessive, frivolous or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding. >Disciplinary action ( not score adjustments; these should be made only >when >the result was affected because the partner may have allowed for the psych >due to previous experience) should be taken against a player whose bidding >does not conform to these regulations. > >PSYCHS WHICH REQUIRE NO REGULATION OR DIRECTOR ATTENTION: > >Any call that deliberately and grossly misstates either honor strength or >suit length is by definition a psych. However, some psychs are disruptive >to the game while others involve bridge tactics > >These definitions should help to distinguish a psych that warrants >disciplinary action or, at the least, attention by the Director, from >those >that are an integral part of the game. > > A Tactical Bid is a psych that is made to paint a picture in an >opponent's >andpartner's mind that will cause them to play you for a holding that you >do not have, enabling you to succeed at the contract to which you were >inevitably headed. > > Example: After partner opens with 1*S*, responder bids 2*D* to try to >ward off a diamond lead on the way to 4*S* holding: *S*QJxxx *H*Ax >*D*xxx >*C*KQx. > Or, you might cuebid an ace you don't >have on your way to six of a suit. > > NOTE: Frequent use of tactics similar to this will develop an implicit >partnership agreement which requires an Alert. The same old story: The BoD saying, in effect, "if we might have made the bid, it's legal, otherwise it's not". This policy, like the one provided to the membership by Mr. Oakie, gives the creative adjudicator enough ammunition to rule against virtually any psych. 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 Jun 23 22:27:54 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:27:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.92.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20597 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:27:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from xtra.co.nz ([210.55.148.49]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v04.00.02.07 201-227-108) with ESMTP id <19990623123017.ERZA784493.mta1-rme@xtra.co.nz> for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:30:17 +1200 Message-ID: <3770CFDD.125A6F27@xtra.co.nz> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:15:25 +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: ACBL Psych Policy References: <00bd01bebc84$fbea64e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is not a get at the ACBL as I have no first hand knowledge of playing in that jurisdiction but the regulations are similar to regulations imposed elsewhere. Recently I was at a Congress where one of the first announcements made was that psyching more than once in a session was considered excessive. > > GENERAL GUIDELINES: A player may make any call or any play (including > an > intentionally misleading one that departs from commonly accepted or > previously announced conventional practice) without prior announcement, > provided it is not based on a partnership understanding. In other words, > a > player can make any bid that will fool partner and his opponents equally. I do not accept that these two sentences are equivalent nor do I see how one can logically be derived from the other. Nor can I find any basis in Law for coming to that conclusion. e.g. Third in hand light openings (and even psyches) are not likely to fool partner (who has passed) as much as 4th player. Recently I became declarer in 3H after the opponent had opened 1S and after some play I had nine top tricks with the club Queen the only outstanding card that I did not know the location of. The opening bidder had shown up with a 10 count. For better or worse I decided to play the opener for the club Queen for a MP overtrick at the risk of my contract. Down one. I was fooled more than (light) opener's partner. Should I complain? I don't think so. > However, ACBL, or other sponsoring organizations, control psychs by > controlling the conventional usages which may impact them. A grand admission. The SO has no authority to control psyches. They have authority only to control conventions and partnership agreements that allow light openings L40D. > > ACBL regulations prohibit psychs depending on the convention chart in > use > for the event. Please note the DISALLOWED section of the appropriate > chart. A SO has no right to regulate psyches. A psyche is not a convention nor is it a partnership understanding. As has been said so often L40A allows psychic calls even psychic uses of conventional bids; L40D allows regulation of conventions and partnership agreements to open light; and L80F allows regulations not in conflict with these and other Laws. I believe, even regulations to disallow psychic openings of strong 1C etc are illegal. What else can "...that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention" L40A mean? The logic goes as follows: 1. I announce (CC or otherwise) I play Precision 2. I pick up a four count and here Pass Pass 3. L40A I may depart from my announced use of convention *and* L80F SO cannot regulate in conflict to for example L40A 4. I may choose any call even 1C strong. > > While psychic bids are an integral part of bridge, a player does not have > the right to psych as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys > doing so. A series of tops and bottoms so earned by one pair can unfairly > affect the final results of a tournament. Why is it unfair? L40A *Any* call is allowed. How can one determine which calls are unfair? It is the player's right to choose a call. To my mind limiting that choice is unfair? Promulgating (illegal) regulations that suggest that the choice of calls is limited is unfair? What is fair is to allow the player to choose according to the law. I find the mention of enjoyment interesting. And according to the Law, so long as I have no partnership understanding if enjoyment (or anything else - masochism...) is my motivation I may chose to psyche as often as I like. > > ACBL'S POLICY ON PSYCHS: Psychs are regulated by taking disciplinary > action against a player who disrupts a game with frequent, random psychs. See above there is no basis for such a regulation, applying L80F it is in direct conflict with L40A. Like it or not L40A allows *any* call - psychic, sound, light, random etc > The Board of Director has defined types of disruptive bidding that make > the offenders subject to penalty. The following definitions and > explanations should prove helpful to all Directors trying to enforce > this *illegal* > regulation. > > Excessive Psychic Bidding -- When three or more psychic initial actions by > members of a partnership have been reported in any one session and are > called to the attention of the Director, the Director should investigate > the possibility that excessive psyching is taking place. A presumption of > inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate > that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that > they > happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate > for > psyches. Easy all hands are appropriate for psyches - see L40A. (unusual or otherwise) > > The continued use of undisciplined psychic bids tends to create > partnership understandings that are implied from partnership experience. > (If partner opens 1 three times in one session with two or fewer > diamonds, partner finds it hard to take any 1 opening bid seriously.) > When the psychic bidder's partner, because of prior usages, has a better > chance of catching a psych than either opponent, there is presumptive > evidence that an undisclosed partnership understanding exists, and the > result of the board may be adjusted. Yes! we are getting towards the right track. The key is that it is partnership understandings that are limited by the laws *not* departures from those understandings (psyches). It seems to me making such (illegal) regulations is the easy way out. That is it is much easier to say 'penalize frequent psyches' than to determine on a case by case basis that there is in fact an illegal and/or undisclosed partnership agreement. IMO the reality is that in many situations there is no illegal (implicit or explicit) partnership understanding and in others some education as to proper disclosure of (implicit) agreements is all that is required (frequent so called tactical bids in the weaker minor etc). Wayne mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 22:57:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA20637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:57:09 +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 WAA20632 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:57:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA25103 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:09:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 08:57:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <00ef01bebcd2$e40772c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:13 AM 6/22/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >> Hmmm... Does DD explain -- or even mention -- the special exception >the >> ACBL has made to this policy in the specific case of 10-12 HCP 1NT >openings >> (which carries an automatic penalty if violated)? I'd love to hear >Gary -- >> or anyone else at the ACBL -- attempt to give a cogent rationale for >this >> exception. >> >I have been looking for something about "automatic penalty," and >cannot find it. . There is nothing about this in *Duplicate >Decisions*, on the ACBL website under Regulations, or in the ACBLScor >Tech Files. Maybe I missed it. Please give a source for such >statements, as searching for things like this is very time-consuming. I'm pretty sure I recall seeing it in print, although I don't remember where, and I've had it cited to me several times by knowledgeable directors. Perhaps someone from the ACBL who is reading this can help us out by getting us either a definitive statement of official policy or a pointer to the source. If we learn that there is no such official policy, despite widely held belief, I will make it a point to help educate TDs and players in this area as to what the actual policy is. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 23:13:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:13:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20716 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:13:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03108 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:13:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:13:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig asked where we might find these flowcharts. These would be most valuable for those actively involved on appeals committees. Making these available to the general public might also reduce the number of frivolous appeals. A prospective appellant looks at the flowchart and can *see* his appeal has no merit. And those of us curious to the workings of these things (and perhaps future appeal committee members) would understand *proper* procedure for considering appeals. Could these flowcharts be placed on the ACBL website or something? Bruce Marvin L. French wrote: : Craig Hemphill wrote: : Jon Brissman wrote: :> :> << We have flow-charted the decision tree for the commonly-heard : appeals (UI, :> MI, etc.). This was the first L45 case in my memory, and we had : no flow :> chart for this law then (we do now). >> :> ------------------------------------------------------------------ : --------- :> :> Great! Where do we find the flowcharts? :> :> Craig Hemphill : Here is the "Action Tree for UI" provided AC members being "trained" : in a seminar conducted by Alan LeBendig (I believe), which I : purloined at the Chicago NABC a year ago: I don't see anything about : MI on it, so maybe it's not current. : 1. Was there UI? >> No, dismiss case : 2. Did the UI demonstrably suggest one action over others? >> No, : dismiss case : 3. Was there a LA to the action chosen >> No, dismiss appeal, case : over [see note 1 - mlf] : Yes >> Adjust score based on L12C, per the following branches: : Is it possible to ascertain the likely or probable result if the : infraction had not occurred? [see note 2 - mlf] : No >> -- Award an adjusted score based on the reponsibility for the : irregularity: Avg- to a contestant directly at fault, Avg to a : contestant partially at fault, at avg+ to a faultless contestant. : See Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play. Scores need not : balance. : Yes >> : For the offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all : probable. Scores awarded need not balance. : For the non-offending side the most favorable result that was likely : had no irregularity occurred. Scores awarded need not balance : ___________________________________ : Note 1: It would seem that "LA" should be defined here. : Note 2: This is poor wording, since it is not required that a : probable or likely result be determined. Time and again TDs and ACs : are awarding artificial scores when they cannot determine accurately : what would have happened absent the infraction. Accuracy is not : required, merely 1/3 or 1/6 probability respectively, for the NOs : and OS. While the last two actions in the chart clarify the intent, : too often TDs/ACs don't get that far. : ------------------------------------------------------- : The decision tree is accompanied by a full page describing possible : sources of UI, which looked pretty good so I won't quote it. MI is : mentioned on this page, but no examples are given. : Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 23:16:11 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:16:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20730 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:16:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03133 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:15:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:15:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Handicaps Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thank you Chyah for a very thoughtful post. I have only one thought to share. How, in heavens name, do you deal with some disgusting piece of scum who complains about dummy calling cards for someone with a visual problem? Have they no shame? No compassion? Just the thought of this angers me. So did the committee rule that the offenders had to play their next two sections blindfolded ;-)? Bruce CHYAH E BURGHARD wrote: : -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- { ACBL regulation summary deleted} : ================= { Problems when folks with different kinds of disabilities meet deleted} : =================== : Making things better: : A great part of these clashes are really people management problems. { A few management problems deleted } : 4) People should find out what the protocol is for various situations : and then stick to it. : I have sat on several committees where people refused to call out their : cards against a blind person. The blind person was the declarer and : the dummy politely called out the opponents cards only to later be : accused of modulating their voice to help the blind person know which : way to correctly play the hand. : With a regulation in force, people are compelled to call out their : own cards. : ======================== : Basically, any reasonable request should be honored. A disabled person : already overcame a wall to put themselves into a difficult situation. : How they handle it depends on where they are at in the mental adaptation of : their disability and regaining their self respect/self worth. It can be : a traumatic time for them. : Feel free to ask me further questions, even the more difficult ones that : you think you would be embarrassed to ask. : -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 23 23:16:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA20749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:16:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (moorebj@slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.4.120]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20737 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:16:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by slot1-120.ts0.cv.oh.verio.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA03147 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:16:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:16:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Revised (amended) message concerning Law 63B. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is an area where one must watch one's ethics carefully. Rules for opting out of 61B: 1. Always asks partner *whenever* he shows out. 2. Ask partner even when the fourth round of a 4333 suit is played. (Even if the other partnership laughs). 3. Always ask with the same words and inflection. If one doesn't follow these guidelines then the problem that started this thread in the ROW will be replaced by a UI problem in the US. Bruce bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au wrote: : Craig Senior wrote: :>While we are expressing opinions, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why :>the ROW doesn't make use of the opt out in 61B. How can preventing an :>established revoke be a bad thing? For once the ACBL got one dead right. :>This whole question is obviated if you just allow "having no spades :>partner." : "Having no spades, partner" = "Oh look, partner, declarer has more : spades than I expected." : -- : 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 Jun 24 00:00:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA20861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:00:41 +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 AAA20856 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:00:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 10wnZf-00029t-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:00:23 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990623155455.00b4c7b0@cable.mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@cable.mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:54:55 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: Handicaps In-Reply-To: <004c01bebcc7$31563680$659c5ccf@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:52 22-06-99 -0400, you wrote: >Chyah wrote:(excellent article heavily snipped)> I have sat on several >committees where people refused to call out their >> cards against a blind person. The blind person was the declarer and >> the dummy politely called out the opponents cards only to later be >> accused of modulating their voice to help the blind person know which >> way to correctly play the hand. >> With a regulation in force, people are compelled to call out their own >cards. > >I find myself appalled that some players could be so insensitive to refuse >to make such a reasonable accomodation to a handicapped individual. To then >bring what amounts to an ethical accusation against that party's partner >makes it difficult to contemplate lunch! > >I sincerely hope that thorough conduct and ethics investigations were >launched against the pairs which appealed. It would seem that their initial >recalcitrance rises to the level of a ZT violation. I think I would have >found 90A in my law book and fined them a board for every board on which >they persisted in their uncooperativeness. > fine them???? use 91 and throw them out, then report their behaviour to the NA/district. I really cant accept this. I have seen lots of nasty people, but this is a bridge too far i think, unless they have a very good story. regards, anton >Bridge is a game for civilised people. They clearly were not. I only wish I >still had the opportunity to play against some of the "handicapped" folks >whose company I was able to enjoy over the years who now shuffle and deal >with the angels. > >If accomodation to physical limitations is not "legal" then we need a new >lawbook forthwith. I would very much like to hear our WBF Laws contingent >weigh in on this. > > > >> The ACBL has little cards that travel with the hearing impaired >> and visually impaired to help identify situations. However, a great >> number of the disabled/impaired do not wish to identify themselves; >> they wish to blend in. > > >Whilst this is understandable, it does make it difficult for others to help. >I do not want to win because someone cannot hear me or cannot see what card >I have played. Please help all of us who want a fair contest to avoid >unknowingly taking such an unfair advantage. (On the other hand beware...I >still may psych or false card or give flase count or preference, the same as >I would against any opponent...no more, no less. I want you to have to beat >the best I have to offer, and use all of what you have!) > >One of the great merits of bridge is that it is a lifetime sport. So long as >the mind is there, we can play until the end of life. As all of us age, we >can hope to live long enough to have to cope with ailments and surmount many >of them. Let us not even consider extending less courtesy to those who must >face them at a younger age, than we might desire for ourselves in our >geriatric years. > >Craig Senior > > Anton Witzen (a.witzen@cable.a2000.nl) Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 01:00:37 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:00:37 +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 BAA23233 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:00:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10woVM-000BNs-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:00:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:21:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy References: <00bd01bebc84$fbea64e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3770CFDD.125A6F27@xtra.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <3770CFDD.125A6F27@xtra.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk wayne wrote: >> However, ACBL, or other sponsoring organizations, control psychs by >> controlling the conventional usages which may impact them. > >A grand admission. The SO has no authority to control psyches. They >have authority only to control conventions and partnership agreements >that allow light openings L40D. Does L40D allow them to control conventions or does it not? The answer is that it does, and the normal interpretation is that the powers granted by L40D are very wide. [s] >> ACBL regulations prohibit psychs depending on the convention chart in >> use >> for the event. Please note the DISALLOWED section of the appropriate >> chart. >A SO has no right to regulate psyches. A psyche is not a convention nor >is it a partnership understanding. > >As has been said so often L40A allows psychic calls even psychic uses of >conventional bids; L40D allows regulation of conventions and partnership >agreements to open light; and L80F allows regulations not in conflict >with these and other Laws. > >I believe, even regulations to disallow psychic openings of strong 1C >etc are illegal. What else can "...that departs from commonly accepted, >or previously announced, use of a convention" L40A mean? The logic goes >as follows: [s] L40D allows regulation of conventions. This includes the right of the SO to allow you to use such a convention only if you do *not* psyche it. You wish to assert your rights under L40A? Fine, but unfortunately the SO can now legitimately ban you from playing the convention at all. It is an interpretation that has been made by SOs: it is known to the WBFLC, who do not see any reason to challenge it. Nor do I: it is a reasonable approach. [s] >What is fair is to allow the player to choose according to the law. > >I find the mention of enjoyment interesting. And according to the Law, >so long as I have no partnership understanding if enjoyment (or anything >else - masochism...) is my motivation I may chose to psyche as often as >I like. No - see below. >> ACBL'S POLICY ON PSYCHS: Psychs are regulated by taking disciplinary >> action against a player who disrupts a game with frequent, random psychs. >See above there is no basis for such a regulation, applying L80F it is >in direct conflict with L40A. > >Like it or not L40A allows *any* call - psychic, sound, light, random >etc No, it does not. It does not allow a call that is in conflict with other Laws. It does not allow a call that is in conflict with L40D [see above] nor in conflict L74A2. Frivolous psyching is not permitted, and rightly so. I do not accept that a pair can psyche legally for no reason whatever except to upset others. ------- I see no reasons to ban psyches by any backdoor method and I agree that the methods apparently used by the ACBL are illegal. However, it is not appropriate to assume that all their regulations are unreasonable and unfair because some of them are. Frivolous psyching is rightly an offence against the Proprieties. Furthermore, SOs may regulate conventions to the extent of not allowing them to be psyched. -- 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 Jun 24 01:11:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:11:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mxb.usuhs.mil ([131.158.7.192]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA23265 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:11:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis ([131.158.186.130]) by mxb.usuhs.mil; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:05:12 -0400 Message-ID: <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:11:10 -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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 8:57 AM Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) > At 10:13 AM 6/22/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > >> Hmmm... Does DD explain -- or even mention -- the special exception > >the > >> ACBL has made to this policy in the specific case of 10-12 HCP 1NT > >openings > >> (which carries an automatic penalty if violated)? I'd love to hear > >Gary -- > >> or anyone else at the ACBL -- attempt to give a cogent rationale for > >this > >> exception. > >> > >I have been looking for something about "automatic penalty," and > >cannot find it. . There is nothing about this in *Duplicate > >Decisions*, on the ACBL website under Regulations, or in the ACBLScor > >Tech Files. Maybe I missed it. Please give a source for such > >statements, as searching for things like this is very time-consuming. > > I'm pretty sure I recall seeing it in print, although I don't remember > where, and I've had it cited to me several times by knowledgeable > directors. Perhaps someone from the ACBL who is reading this can help us > out by getting us either a definitive statement of official policy or a > pointer to the source. If we learn that there is no such official policy, > despite widely held belief, I will make it a point to help educate TDs and > players in this area as to what the actual policy is. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > Jeff Meckstroth wrote an article on this in the ACBL Bulletin a couple of years ago. ISTR the rationale was that if you opened a 9 HCP NT while playing 10-12, there was likely an implicit agreement that you were really playing 9-12 NT, in which case conventional responses would be barred. Since there is no way to tell whether the decision to open a 9 HCP NT was in fact a bridge judgement or an implicit agreement, all 9 HCP NTs are treated as implicit agreements. If the the partnership plays conventional responses over a 9 HCP NT call, the ACBL treats this as an illegal agreement subject to automatic penalty. Playing a 15-17 NT, you are allowed to upgrade "good" 14 HCP hands more leniently, since conventional agreements would still be allowed over the 14 HCP opener (although if this is done regularly, the actual range is 14-17 and should be disclosed as such). As a caveat, I'm writing this from memory and I read this a couple of years ago, so I may be misstating this grossly. In ACBL land, playing 10-12 HCP NT you can open 1NT on QJ2 J432 QJ2 QJ2, but are subject to penalty if you open this one: KT9, T9, AT987, QT9. This example is not a joke. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 01:48:21 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA23377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA23372 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:48:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA38272 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:48:03 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id LAA24668 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:38:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199906231538.LAA24668@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:38:32, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: handicaps (Long) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- This is going to be long and I will address some comments by Nancy and Bruce further down. I don't think what I am about to explain is easy, I can only try. Welcome to the wonderful world of "The other side of the coin." I see a lot of people asking questions, that why valid, show that when you are not in the same situation as someone else, it is often hard to understand what they are thinking. In the bridge world, it is critical. -------------------------------- First from the disabled/impaired side. Growth stages: 1) Handicap occurs; 2) realize the handicap is interfering with your life; 3) Get angry that this has happened to you; 4) Mourn your loss - acceptance; 5) Acquire tools necessary to compensate (like hearing aids); 6) Begin to deal with the world under new parameters. 7) Assertiveness training: Ask for what you need. 8) A very long path to regaining self-esteem under the new parameters. 9) Why does the world treat handicapped people the way they do? Why isn't automatic that people do the right thing? Why me? 10) Its their problem, not yours; or why you don't need to get upset when someone else is an idiot. ---------------------------- >From the opponents side. People often invest a lot of energy being stressed out when they are not quite coping with their world. In other words, someone else behaves badly to you and you get sucked into the situation because of various stages of Mental development. That is mainly because they don't realizes that the opponents acting rude, often have a hidden handicap which I define as not adapting well to changes in environment or changes in expectations of a scenario. 1) I have played bridge for 30 years. Other people had hearing problems, they didn't use bidding boxes, why do I have to do it for this person? 2) I want to be competitive. When I sit down to play bridge I enter my own little world. As long as things are always the same, I am fine. How dare they introduce something new into my environment? 3) Okay, now that I have gotten over the shock of having to to do something new, I am afraid of making a mistake. What if I call out the wrong card (or pull out the wrong bidding card)? 4) This person has been playing without braille cards or bidding boxes. The person looks the same, what changed that I have to do this now? Or what I also call, "you speak too well, you can't have a hearing problem." 5) When two disabilities clash it is often that someone is so nervous about taking care of themselves they don't have any energy leftover to take care of someone else. We find that talking to people like children works well. Use lots of patience and understanding. "Oh yes, I remember how difficult it was to learn to use bidding boxes. Let us help you learn and we will all try to have a good time." "Isn't it nice that there is something new to help people? Maybe some of your friends who quit playing could now playing if they knew about these." Visual impairment: If the director was smart enough to place a congenial N/S pair at the table BEFORE a move into a visually impaired table, they could explain about calling out cards before the move, that way the E/W pair has a chance to absorb the information. This is a basic problem, you need time to explain how to use boxes or braille cards and you might also need that time to play a hand. Suddenly your table is late all the time and you can't get caught up until a hospitality break. The director can inadvertently create more stress if they don't realize that lack of time is "often" a short term problem. In a club, people will learn in a matter of weeks and then you won't be teaching every round. At the Nationals, we always catch some people who do not know how to use bidding boxes on the first few days, or maybe it is the first few rounds of an event, but as the tournament goes on, it gets better. SO HAVE PATIENCE!!!!!!!!! FOR THE RECORD: I use to hear the comment that bidding boxes or braille cards would scare novices out of the game, but the truth is that novices have no preconceived notions of the duplicate world. It was never the novices we had problems with, it was always the people who had played bridge for 30 years and didn't like the shock of something new. ========================================= Nancy Commented: >>deaf player could not hear the bidding. When the director was called to solve the problem, she ruled that the bid boxes would *not* be used! Wonderful, now the deaf player is penalized and livid.<< This was just the case of an under-educated director. The director did not know how to deal with the situation and panicked. The appropriate thing to have done would be to politely ask if the director could check with the director in charge of the event and to see if that director had a solution. This might bring out the head director, who might be cooler having gotten to think on the way to the table, and might be more open to compromise. 1When I have played in a National Event, they have simply cornered a caddy or a director to sit in the corner and pull cards for the visually impaired person. In Regional events, no one seems to care if my partners do it. Again, this is a people management problem. No one thought about the situation ahead of time, so there were too many people panicking and no one thinking clearly. This is why, when I am working with disable/impaired people, we give them plans for working out things so that they can say, "No big deal, why don't we do it this way?" >>If a player can't concentrate and read out calls, how on earth did this individual learn to play bridge without bid boxes???? << Very simple, it is a right brain, left brain situation. When you learn auditory bridge and then learn bidding boxes, you can't remember the bidding until you have practiced remembering "seeing the bidding" rather than "hearing the bidding." People can do a whole auction with bidding boxes and then need an auditory review at the end, so they can remember. ======================================================== Bruce Moore asked: >I have only one thought to share. How, in heavens name, do you deal with some disgusting piece of scum who complains about dummy calling cards for someone with a visual problem? Have they no shame? No compassion? Just the thought of this angers me.< Very simple, it isn't productive. If you yell at someone for being a jerk at the table, they will only remember that you yelled at them. But if you educate them, they will walk away and teach someone else what they learned. I won't say that I never get angry or have not let off a little steam to spouse or partner before entering an appeal, but by the time I get there, I can handle people professionally. When I lived in Minnesota, I crossed trained as a "peer counselor" for people coming into their disabilities. In the majority of the appeal cases, if after talking to the people, an apology was offered, the matter usually died their. Only in the case where the person had no clue as to how terrible their behavior was, was something additional done like probation or suspension. Remember that being a jerk is their problem; being angry is your problem. We most often want satisfaction from the jerks and you almost never get what you want. This doesn't mean that I didn't get angry at one time too, but when you begin to understand what makes people be jerks, then you can learn to handle them better too. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 02:05:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:05:50 +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 CAA23584 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:05:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA14174; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:04:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-59.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.123) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014135; Wed Jun 23 11:04:25 1999 Message-ID: <000e01bebd92$3b2afb20$7b9c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren" Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:05:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 How I wish this were true! I could easily justify any of my psychs on a basis that some players of my ability level might have seriously considered psyching even though none may actually have done so.! (From what John writes such a policy would seem to justify a psych on every board at the YC ACBL game :-)) Craig From: Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy (MLF quoted Duplicate Decisions) >>Excessive Psychic Bidding --(snip) A presumption of >>inappropriate behavior exists, and it is up to the players to demonstrate that they were not just horsing around. It is up to them to show that they >>happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually appropriate for psyches. > (Robert replied)>This sounds like what it is i thnk burden of proff is on the defendant not >the prosecutor. Being guilty because you can't present evidence that those >hands where "unusually appropriate for psyches", A simple question just how >do you get that across when statements you make are concidered selfserving. >Guess you on each and one of those boards in question needs to have the >feild bidding the same psyche in an amount that matches ACBL's definition >of LA. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 02:27:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA23767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:27:34 +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 CAA23761 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:27:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA17738; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:25:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-59.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.123) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma017683; Wed Jun 23 11:25:39 1999 Message-ID: <001501bebd95$328f9540$7b9c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:26:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Am I just being dense or did you perchance word this example less clearly than the rest of your fine post? -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson > >[3] It is a CPU, such as opening 1D on > > KQx > Jxxx > KQ > Jxxx > >when playing Precision, where this is the normal opening on such a hand. How can opening 1D on this hand in simple precision be a psych or a CPU? As you point out, this IS the normal opening on this hand. With a 13-15 1NT as per Wei/Anderson, no 5 card major and 11-15 HCP whatever else would you open it? With a 12-14 HCP range stated it would appear to be a judgement call, though I would prefer to see the convention card revealing that the agreement is 12+ to 14. Still if we would not consider a bid of 1D playing a 15-17 nt a psych or cpu on KJx KQ QJxx QJxx we should not consider it so in the example hand even if you would always open it 1D. This, to me, is a clear example of style or judgement, not of a CPU. What do others think? Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 02:59:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA24120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:59:39 +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 CAA24113 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:59:31 +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 MAA12370 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:59:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906231659.MAA26719@mush.math.lsa.umich.edu> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> (hdavis@erols.com) Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis writes: > Jeff Meckstroth wrote an article on this in the ACBL Bulletin a couple of > years ago. ISTR the rationale was that if you opened a 9 HCP NT while > playing 10-12, there was likely an implicit agreement that you were really > playing 9-12 NT, in which case conventional responses would be barred. > Since there is no way to tell whether the decision to open a 9 HCP NT was in > fact a bridge judgement or an implicit agreement, all 9 HCP NTs are treated > as implicit agreements. However, that rule isn't applied in other situations in which there are similar rules. For example, you may not play conventions over weak 2-bids with a range greater than 7 HCP. If your weak 2-bids have a range of 5-11 (the maximum permitted range), and you choose to open 2S on KJT987 x xxx xxx, or on AQJ432 Q xxx Kxx, there is no ruling of an illegal agreement. (And some players would open both with 2S in third seat.) -- 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 Jun 24 03:01:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA24159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 03:01:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA24152 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 03:01:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (dnas-07-32.sat.idworld.net [209.142.70.194]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20241; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:01:16 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <37711202.C2F28CF9@txdirect.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:57:38 -0500 From: "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CHYAH E BURGHARD CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: handicaps (Long) References: <199906231538.LAA24668@mime2.prodigy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chyah; I had no idea that you had any handicaps at all. The one time we met in Memphis I never could tell. Having just gone through a four day period of being totally deaf in the left ear and at about 10% in the right ear I have gained an understanding that I did not have before. The initial period of confusion and dismay when I woke up was traumatic. Monday past the doctors removed some infection related plugs from my ear canals and I joined the hearing. I now really understand one of my regulars who often has problems withher hearing aids. A weekend without hearing is a wake-up call. I was terrorized that it may turn permanent. Your article should be posted to Dave Stevenson's pages and somehow should also be dessiminated to all our ACBL directors. Most will understand - and some need the information. Well written. -- BiigAl, Al Lochli biigal@satlug.org - biigal@txdirect.net - PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 - Phone: (210) 829-4274 Webmaster Units 172, 173, 187, 204, 205, 209, 225, 233, 237, SA-NABC99 SA-NABC99 webpage: http://www.txdirect.net/~bjd/NABC99/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 05:05:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA25530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 05:05:56 +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 FAA25523 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 05:05:47 +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 MAA08398; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:05:06 -0700 Message-Id: <199906231905.MAA08398@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:26:43 PDT." <001501bebd95$328f9540$7b9c5ccf@host> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:05:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > Am I just being dense or did you perchance word this example less clearly > than the rest of your fine post? > -----Original Message----- > From: David Stevenson > > >[3] It is a CPU, such as opening 1D on > > > > KQx > > Jxxx > > KQ > > Jxxx > > > >when playing Precision, where this is the normal opening on such a hand. > > > How can opening 1D on this hand in simple precision be a psych or a > CPU? Not to speak for David, but after looking at his previous post, I believe he means it's a CPU because you have "3+ diamonds" written on your convention card. If that's what your convention card says, and your agreement is that a 2-card 1D opening is normal, then your mismarked convention card might be considered a CPU---and should definitely be considered misinformation. The fact that you *might* open this 1D if you were playing a different version of Precision more in accord with your convention card isn't relevant. > As you point out, this IS the normal opening on this hand. With a > 13-15 1NT as per Wei/Anderson, no 5 card major and 11-15 HCP > whatever else would you open it? Bidding theory is a bit off topic here, but: Wei's original Precision had a range of 13-15 for 1NT, and required 4+ diamonds (3 only occasionally) for a 1D opener. I think his intent was that balanced crap such as this should be passed. Even if playing one of the more modern versions of Precision, if you're playing 13-15 or even 12-14 notrump, pass is worth considering on this junk. The Kaplan-Rubens count gives this a whopping 8.8. This hand looks like a good 1NT opening bid if playing a 10-12 notrump, but even then it might be an overbid. :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 06:43:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA26130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 06:43:03 +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 GAA26125 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 06:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA00008; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:42:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma029918; Wed Jun 23 15:41:33 1999 Message-ID: <005f01bebdb8$f3ebc6a0$7b9c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Norman Scorbie" , Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:42:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Why don't we go whole hog and inquire about sexual preferences, the likelihood of seeking a liason with an opponent, ones proclivities during bathroom breaks, locations of warts, moles and tattoos, and ones attitude toward the president or PM? Then we could ask about annual income, amount of life insurance carried, whether one is considering the purchase of an automobile in the next six months, and what brand(s) of toothpaste and deodorant oen has used in the past fortnight. A style card would only seem acceptable if there were a column headed MYOB. Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Norman Scorbie To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 6:41 AM Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) > > > >Tim West-Meads wrote > >>Not necessarily "agreement" but it can become an understanding pretty >>quickly for common situations. I wonder how people would feel about >>completing "Style Cards" in addition to CCs (Style cards need not be >>identical for members of a partnership). >> >>Example of some questions that might be asked (very draft). >> >>Using a scale 1=almost never to 5=very frequent how often do you: >>- make what are generally considered aggressive bids? >>- make what are generally considered cautious bids? >>- downgrade HCPs based on poor intermediates? >>- upgrade HCPs based on good intermediates? >>- psyche >>- baby psyche >>(- forget your agreements) >>(- poach the play of the hand from partner) >> >>Please rank the following by how important you consider them to bidding >>decisions (perhaps 3 questions eg when opening, uncontested, contested >>auction)? >> >>HCP >>Distribution >>Hand Texture >>LoTT >>LTC >> >>This could help solve the CPU problem as well as providing assistance to >>TDs on UI cases &c (obviously it could also open up a can of MI worms). >> >>Tim West-Meads >> > >Lordy, what a splendid idea. I think that possibly there should also be >'life-style' cards, whereupon players give details of their social, family >and educational background, as well as their employment and interests, so >that opponents have full disclosure of their attitudes and behavioural >patterns. > >This, of course, also opens up a marketing opportunity for sponsoring >organizations, who could sell enormous suitcases to carry around all these >various cards... > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 06:53:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA26191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 06:53:23 +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 GAA26185 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 06:53:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA01800; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:52:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001603; Wed Jun 23 15:52:00 1999 Message-ID: <006601bebdba$69b09720$7b9c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:53:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 I think this section goes back to the original EHAA which went over in ACBLland with all the placidity of a forcing pass. When one so thoroughly seeks the random chaotic result, one is completely preventing the opponents from employing any of their own system. This would appear to constitute an HUM under almost any typically accepted definition, and it seems reasonable to even an unrepentant psycher like me to regulate or ban it. (It does sound like a bully system to allow at the annual club party, but effectively prevents anyone from playing serious bridge. It's rather like dealing four at a time without a shuffle as in train bridge...a variant, but not really bridge.) From: Eric Landau Marvin wrote:(quoting Duplicate Decisions) >>While psychic bids are an integral part of bridge, a player does not have >>the right to psych as frequently as he wishes simply because he enjoys >>doing so. A series of tops and bottoms so earned by one pair can unfairly >>affect the final results of a tournament. > Eric wrote:>God forbid we should let anyone get away with putting their enjoyment of >the game ahead of their score. If this is justified on the grounds that >the odd results thus generated can unfairly affect the results, what do we >have to say on the same subject to the novice pairs who want to play in >Flight A? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 07:10:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA26360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:10:21 +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 HAA26349 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 07:10:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA04674; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:09:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa2-03.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.67) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma004624; Wed Jun 23 16:08:50 1999 Message-ID: <007b01bebdbc$c3a62720$7b9c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:10:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Hirsch Davis > >In ACBL land, playing 10-12 HCP NT you can open 1NT on QJ2 J432 QJ2 QJ2, but >are subject to penalty if you open this one: KT9, T9, AT987, QT9. This >example is not a joke. > >Hirsch > Yes it is...it just isn't very funny. Absurdities like this are what have created the acronym: Absolute Control of Bidding Lunatics. Too rigid policies that attempt to stifle innovative and aggresive play create an average player age of 70 in a declining membership. Or shall we still require weak 2s to be 6-12 (or almost as bad meet the 5 & 5 rule). A little latitude is advisable folks! Respect for Laws and regulations requires that they be reasonable as well as applied even handedly. Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 08:57:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA26884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:57:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA26879 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:57:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.95.202.37] by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:55:41 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> References: <00ef01bebcd2$e40772c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:49:02 -0400 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:57 AM -0400 6/23/99, Eric Landau wrote: >I'm pretty sure I recall seeing it in print, although I don't remember >where, and I've had it cited to me several times by knowledgeable >directors. Perhaps someone from the ACBL who is reading this can help us >out by getting us either a definitive statement of official policy or a >pointer to the source. If we learn that there is no such official policy, >despite widely held belief, I will make it a point to help educate TDs and >players in this area as to what the actual policy is. I would really like to see ACBL officially promulgate _all_ their governing directives in a manner and place such that players as well as TDs can readily determine what's what. In the absence of such action, though, perhaps it's incumbent on concerned players to request a TD "show it to us in writing" - for _every_ ruling. 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/AwUBN3FmUb2UW3au93vOEQIF9ACg4zN0xYtonQJTW4QC99JbmE32WFkAoKPn SfLZccYMVkxozE9Nydt+Lsft =Sgo6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 09:13:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:13:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA26904 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:12:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA07399 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:12:11 -0500 (CDT) Received: from irv-ca57-103.ix.netcom.com(199.35.99.231) by dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007330; Wed Jun 23 18:11:49 1999 Message-ID: <377168E5.6B49B8D2@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:08:21 -0700 From: "Jon C. Brissman" Reply-To: jonbriss@ix3.ix.netcom.com Organization: BRISSMAN & SCHLUETER X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Network Subject: Flow Charts (was Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore wrote: > Craig asked where we might find these flowcharts. These would > be most valuable for those actively involved on appeals > committees. > > Making these available to the general public might also reduce > the number of frivolous appeals. A prospective appellant looks > at the flowchart and can *see* his appeal has no merit. > > And those of us curious to the workings of these things (and > perhaps future appeal committee members) would understand > *proper* procedure for considering appeals. > > Could these flowcharts be placed on the ACBL website or something? > ---- I'll contact Linda Trent and see if she can post them on BLML. I can suggest they be put on the ACBL website, but I have no control over what goes in and what stays out. In any case, Linda is unavailable (in Las Vegas) for a few days; look for something next week. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 09:14:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:14:21 +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 JAA26920 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:14:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10wwDP-000Ayt-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:14:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:03:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicago NABC Appeals Case 10 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bruce J. Moore wrote: >Craig asked where we might find these flowcharts. These would >be most valuable for those actively involved on appeals >committees. > >Making these available to the general public might also reduce >the number of frivolous appeals. A prospective appellant looks >at the flowchart and can *see* his appeal has no merit. > >And those of us curious to the workings of these things (and >perhaps future appeal committee members) would understand >*proper* procedure for considering appeals. > >Could these flowcharts be placed on the ACBL website or something? Also in Appeals Handbooks [Linda?] which are intended as training for future ACs and for others to see how ACs work. -- 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 Jun 24 09:35:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA26995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:35:10 +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 JAA26989 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:35:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10wwXa-000Cgc-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:34:53 +0000 Message-ID: <68FH9CAY7Wc3EwAw@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:33:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: revoke and claim MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Entertainment at the YC :) 7 card ending: Qxxx - xxx - x K43 Immaterial - QTx AKx A98 A - Hearts are trumps West has failed to follow in clubs and has established his revoke (He didn't win the revoke trick. EW have won a subsequent trick.) South is declarer (lead in dummy) and claims "Playing on Hearts, 6 more tricks" I get called. South explains that he claimed knowing he can win all returns from West, and obviously is returning with a spade to hand. Your go :)) 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 Jun 24 09:44:52 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA27042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:44:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [195.61.43.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA27036 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:44:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from bidule2 (portmp258.worldcom.ch [195.119.117.18]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA08835 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:43:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990623234512.006df374@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:45:12 +0200 To: From: Yvan Calame Subject: fun from malta Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: 99etc - bulletin 11 Pulling a Director by Chris Dixon While playing in a tournament recently, I couldn't help noticing the young and attractive female tournament director. After the event finished, I thought I would try my luck. The results of my clumsy attempt at seduction can best be described by reprinting the letter I received from her the following day. Sir, You telephoned me yesterday when my husband was on the other line (Law 33 - Simultaneous Calls), but did not tell me what you wanted (Law 46D - Incomplete or Erroneous Call). I said I would phone back, but before I could, you called me again (Section 4 - Call Out of Rotation), although I agree that it was probably more appropriate that you make the first move (Law 29C - Call out of rotation is Conventional). You told me that you would send our manservant around with a note. Your man came round and showed me your card (Law 45F - Dummy indicates card) which I accepted (Law 52B 1 - Play of card accepted). The note included an invitation to go out for a Big Mac. This was insulting, and I could not accept (Law 27B - Insufficient Bid not accepted). Then, you attempted to correct this by offering me two Big Macs! (Law 27B 3 - Attempt to Correct by a Double), but your eventual offer of a romantic dinner for two was adequate (Law 27B 2 - Corrected by Sufficient Bid). When we were dining, you pretended not to be married (Law 73E - Deception), but I had already discovered from your man that you were (Law 16 - Unauthorised Information). At first, I was happy with the nature of our conversation (Law 73A - Proper Communication between Partners), but was shocked when you invited me back to your room for a nightcap. This was entirely inappropriate (Law 73B - Inappropriate Communication between Partners), and I could only imagine that you were proposing something illegal (Law 60 - Illegal Play). This would obviously be contrary to your marriage vows (Law 75B - Violation of Partnership Agreement), and I asked for you to clarify what you meant (Law 70B 1 - Require to Repeat Statement). You hesitated unmistakably, which demonstrably suggested the logical alternative (Law 16A - Extraneous Information from Partner), that you were claiming my coop- eration. I acquiesced (Law 69A - Acquiescence Occurs), and accepted your lead (Law 55A - Lead Accepted). However, after considering my vulnerability (Law 77 - Scoring), I retracted my acquiescence (Law 69B - Acquiescence in Claim With- drawn), and the whole matter ended (Law 68D - Play Ceases). You spread your hands in dismay (Law 54A -Declarer spreads his Hand) and asked me to return your card (Law 47 - Retrac- tion of Card Played). That, fortunately, was the end of the session (Law 8C - End of Session). I hope that you agree that these are the facts of the matter (Law 84 - Agreed Facts), and must end by saying that if you wish to make friends you must learn how to appeal (Law 92C - How to Appeal). Yours truly From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 10:12:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA27123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:12:15 +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 KAA27113 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:12:06 +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 RAA15240; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:11:24 -0700 Message-Id: <199906240011.RAA15240@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:33:44 PDT." <68FH9CAY7Wc3EwAw@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:11:26 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > Entertainment at the YC :) > > 7 card ending: > > Qxxx > - > xxx > - > x > K43 Immaterial > - > QTx > AKx > A98 > A > - > Hearts are trumps > > West has failed to follow in clubs and has established his revoke (He > didn't win the revoke trick. EW have won a subsequent trick.) > > South is declarer (lead in dummy) and claims "Playing on Hearts, 6 more > tricks" > > I get called. South explains that he claimed knowing he can win all > returns from West, and obviously is returning with a spade to hand. > > Your go :)) Cheers John I don't think we have enough information. The revoke and claim laws should give declarer five tricks, because his line will get him three (declarer plays ace-low in hearts, West winning; West returns a club, ruffed by declarer; declarer plays a diamond, ruffed by West; West cashes two more clubs, then concedes a spade), and the revoke penalty is two tricks. However, we have to see if Law 64C applies, and I believe the way to do that is to figure out how many tricks declarer *should* have made if West had followed suit on the earlier trick. We don't have enough information to figure that out. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 11:19:53 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:19:53 +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 LAA27407 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:19:46 +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 SAA19914 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:15:22 -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 Hirsch Davis wrote: > Eric Landau wrote >>Marvin wrote: > > > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > >> Hmmm... Does DD explain -- or even mention -- the special exception > > >the > > >> ACBL has made to this policy in the specific case of 10-12 HCP 1NT > > >openings > > >> (which carries an automatic penalty if violated)? I'd love to hear > > >Gary -- > > >> or anyone else at the ACBL -- attempt to give a cogent rationale for > > >this > > >> exception. > > >> > > >I have been looking for something about "automatic penalty," and > > >cannot find it. . There is nothing about this in *Duplicate > > >Decisions*, on the ACBL website under Regulations, or in the ACBLScor > > >Tech Files. Maybe I missed it. Please give a source for such > > >statements, as searching for things like this is very time-consuming. > > > > I'm pretty sure I recall seeing it in print, although I don't remember > > where, and I've had it cited to me several times by knowledgeable > > directors. Perhaps someone from the ACBL who is reading this can help us > > out by getting us either a definitive statement of official policy or a > > pointer to the source. If we learn that there is no such official policy, > > despite widely held belief, I will make it a point to help educate TDs and > > players in this area as to what the actual policy is. > > > > > Jeff Meckstroth wrote an article on this in the ACBL Bulletin a couple of > years ago. ISTR the rationale was that if you opened a 9 HCP NT while > playing 10-12, there was likely an implicit agreement that you were really > playing 9-12 NT, in which case conventional responses would be barred. > Since there is no way to tell whether the decision to open a 9 HCP NT was in > fact a bridge judgement or an implicit agreement, all 9 HCP NTs are treated > as implicit agreements. If the the partnership plays conventional responses > over a 9 HCP NT call, the ACBL treats this as an illegal agreement subject > to automatic penalty. Playing a 15-17 NT, you are allowed to upgrade > "good" 14 HCP hands more leniently, since conventional agreements would > still be allowed over the 14 HCP opener (although if this is done regularly, > the actual range is 14-17 and should be disclosed as such). As a caveat, I'm > writing this from memory and I read this a couple of years ago, so I may be > misstating this grossly. Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and has no legal force. Where is the regulation that says opening understrength on an infrequent occasion is illegal? The ACBL's *Duplicate Decisions* says it is merely a "deviation," not illegal. > > In ACBL land, playing 10-12 HCP NT you can open 1NT on QJ2 J432 QJ2 QJ2, but > are subject to penalty if you open this one: KT9, T9, AT987, QT9. This > example is not a joke. That is baloney, IMO, and is a joke. Since I am fuming, I had better sign off. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 11:41:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:41:52 +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 LAA27490 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:41:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10wyVn-000DJZ-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:41:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:39:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Handicaps References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. > > This player would like the cards called as they are played [except >when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or >at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read >out the calls. > > Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes >cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. > > I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, >legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it >difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. Perhaps we might move on. There is a feeling amongst the list [and it is stronger in emails I have received] that not to make allowances for the disabled is unreasonable [and possibly illegal in the USA]. I have played against blind players. My partner and I read the cards out and it would never have occurred to us to do anything else. We were very impressed that if she forgot what was left in dummy [they were a married couple, both blind] then we never had to tell her: he did! However, the problem that led to my initial post is slightly more complicated: the disabled players manage to upset nearly all their opponents! While several people do their best for them the feeling is that they take advantage, and they are not nice people. They have seriously upset *several* opponents. I am being bombarded by emails from a friend of mine [who reads BLML] about how unreasonable it is to do anything but bend over backwards for disabled people. Yeah, maybe. The most common disabled person does not make it a life work to upset people. As a result, everyone tries to help such a person, and there is no problem. Now, what about a person who is disabled in some way, and everyone dislikes them and thinks they are taking advantage. What then? -- 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 Jun 24 11:41:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:41:56 +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 LAA27492 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:41:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10wyWB-000K0G-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:41:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:39:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy References: <001501bebd95$328f9540$7b9c5ccf@host> In-Reply-To: <001501bebd95$328f9540$7b9c5ccf@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Am I just being dense or did you perchance word this example less clearly >than the rest of your fine post? >From: David Stevenson > >>[3] It is a CPU, such as opening 1D on >> >> KQx >> Jxxx >> KQ >> Jxxx >> >>when playing Precision, where this is the normal opening on such a hand. >How can opening 1D on this hand in simple precision be a psych or a CPU? As >you point out, this IS the normal opening on this hand. With a 13-15 1NT as >per Wei/Anderson, no 5 card major and 11-15 HCP whatever else would you open >it? With a 12-14 HCP range stated it would appear to be a judgement call, >though I would prefer to see the convention card revealing that the >agreement is 12+ to 14. Still if we would not consider a bid of 1D playing a >15-17 nt a psych or cpu on KJx KQ QJxx QJxx we should not consider it so in >the example hand even if you would always open it 1D. This, to me, is a >clear example of style or judgement, not of a CPU. What do others think? So it is the normal opening. Why tell opponents that you play 1D as 3+ diamonds when you don't? That's a CPU. ----------- Adam Beneschan wrote: >Not to speak for David, but after looking at his previous post, I >believe he means it's a CPU because you have "3+ diamonds" written on >your convention card. If that's what your convention card says, and >your agreement is that a 2-card 1D opening is normal, then your >mismarked convention card might be considered a CPU---and should >definitely be considered misinformation. The fact that you *might* >open this 1D if you were playing a different version of Precision more >in accord with your convention card isn't relevant. Exactly. You have spoken for David very accurately! -- 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 Jun 24 11:51:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:51:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailrelay.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-121.home.net [216.216.127.121] (may be forged)) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27552 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:50:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from ani-bdc.affiliation.com (ATHM-216-216-xxx-124.home.net [216.216.127.124] (may be forged)) by mailrelay.affiliation.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA29862; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:48:32 -0700 Received: by ani-bdc.affiliation.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:48:37 -0700 Message-ID: From: Jeff Goldsmith To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Handicaps Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:48:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: I am being bombarded by emails from a friend of mine [who reads BLML] about how unreasonable it is to do anything but bend over backwards for disabled people. Yeah, maybe. The most common disabled person does not make it a life work to upset people. As a result, everyone tries to help such a person, and there is no problem. Now, what about a person who is disabled in some way, and everyone dislikes them and thinks they are taking advantage. What then? What do you do if a non-disabled person is disliked by everyone and is thought to be taking some sort of unfair advantage? You talk with the person, try to get him to adjust his behavior, and sanction him if he won't. Being disabled is not license to be a jerk. Inconvenient maybe, but not more than is necessary to accomodate the handicap. --Jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 11:59:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:59:52 +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 LAA27585 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:59:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10wyna-000Kp3-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:59:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:55:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-Reply-To: <199906240011.RAA15240@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906240011.RAA15240@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >John Probst wrote: > >> Entertainment at the YC :) >> >> 7 card ending: >> >> Qxxx >> - >> xxx >> - >> x >> K43 Immaterial >> - >> QTx >> AKx >> A98 >> A >> - >> Hearts are trumps >> >> West has failed to follow in clubs and has established his revoke (He >> didn't win the revoke trick. EW have won a subsequent trick.) >> >> South is declarer (lead in dummy) and claims "Playing on Hearts, 6 more >> tricks" >> >> I get called. South explains that he claimed knowing he can win all >> returns from West, and obviously is returning with a spade to hand. >> >> Your go :)) Cheers John > >I don't think we have enough information. How many tricks do you award declarer of the last 7 is the question? -- 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 Jun 24 12:07:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:07:30 +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 MAA27608 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:07:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-4.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.34]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA02286 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:07:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <377192F7.92444010@pinehurst.net> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:07:52 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Handicaps References: <004c01bebcc7$31563680$659c5ccf@host> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My job at the NABC's for many years was to sit in the room with the players who were in the finals of the major team events and call the cards for the viewgraph. I sat between two of the players and called every bid and every card that was played. These guys could hear me, they all knew I was there but it never seemed to disrupt their concentration or their play. If I missed a card they would help me. I guess the players who have so much trouble with the calling of the bids and cards should pray that they never make a final or have to be on viewgraph!!!... Nancy Craig Senior wrote: > Chyah wrote:(excellent article heavily snipped)> I have sat on several > committees where people refused to call out their > > cards against a blind person. The blind person was the declarer and > > the dummy politely called out the opponents cards only to later be > > accused of modulating their voice to help the blind person know which > > way to correctly play the hand. > > With a regulation in force, people are compelled to call out their own > cards. > > I find myself appalled that some players could be so insensitive to refuse > to make such a reasonable accomodation to a handicapped individual. To then > bring what amounts to an ethical accusation against that party's partner > makes it difficult to contemplate lunch! > > I sincerely hope that thorough conduct and ethics investigations were > launched against the pairs which appealed. It would seem that their initial > recalcitrance rises to the level of a ZT violation. I think I would have > found 90A in my law book and fined them a board for every board on which > they persisted in their uncooperativeness. > > Bridge is a game for civilised people. They clearly were not. I only wish I > still had the opportunity to play against some of the "handicapped" folks > whose company I was able to enjoy over the years who now shuffle and deal > with the angels. > > If accomodation to physical limitations is not "legal" then we need a new > lawbook forthwith. I would very much like to hear our WBF Laws contingent > weigh in on this. > > > The ACBL has little cards that travel with the hearing impaired > > and visually impaired to help identify situations. However, a great > > number of the disabled/impaired do not wish to identify themselves; > > they wish to blend in. > > Whilst this is understandable, it does make it difficult for others to help. > I do not want to win because someone cannot hear me or cannot see what card > I have played. Please help all of us who want a fair contest to avoid > unknowingly taking such an unfair advantage. (On the other hand beware...I > still may psych or false card or give flase count or preference, the same as > I would against any opponent...no more, no less. I want you to have to beat > the best I have to offer, and use all of what you have!) > > One of the great merits of bridge is that it is a lifetime sport. So long as > the mind is there, we can play until the end of life. As all of us age, we > can hope to live long enough to have to cope with ailments and surmount many > of them. Let us not even consider extending less courtesy to those who must > face them at a younger age, than we might desire for ourselves in our > geriatric years. > > Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 13:30:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:30:38 +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 NAA27744 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:30:31 +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 UAA11933 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006801bebdf1$c89f3e80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001501bebd95$328f9540$7b9c5ccf@host> Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:21:21 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > From: David Stevenson > > >[3] It is a CPU, such as opening 1D on > > > > KQx > > Jxxx > > KQ > > Jxxx > > > >when playing Precision, where this is the normal opening on such a hand. > > > How can opening 1D on this hand in simple precision be a psych or a CPU? As > you point out, this IS the normal opening on this hand. With a 13-15 1NT as > per Wei/Anderson, no 5 card major and 11-15 HCP whatever else would you open > it? With a 12-14 HCP range stated it would appear to be a judgement call, > though I would prefer to see the convention card revealing that the > agreement is 12+ to 14. Still if we would not consider a bid of 1D playing a > 15-17 nt a psych or cpu on KJx KQ QJxx QJxx we should not consider it so in > the example hand even if you would always open it 1D. This, to me, is a > clear example of style or judgement, not of a CPU. What do others think? > In ACBL-land, "ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points" (General Convention Chart). Whether the opening is a problem elsewhere, I have no idea, but it certainly is not a psych or CPU here. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 13:40:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:40:43 +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 NAA27783 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:40:36 +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 UAA13525 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007001bebdf3$31195940$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00ef01bebcd2$e40772c0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com><3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 20:38:58 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > I would really like to see ACBL officially promulgate _all_ their governing > directives in a manner and place such that players as well as TDs can > readily determine what's what. In the absence of such action, though, > perhaps it's incumbent on concerned players to request a TD "show it to us > in writing" - for _every_ ruling. > Everyone who feels this way should send an e-mail saying so to Gary Blaiss, who is not only Chief Tournament Director of the ACBL, but also the secretary for the BoD, Competition and Conventions Committee, Tournament Committee, etc. He decides what goes on the ACBL website, I believe, and is the one who can make this happen. He can be reached through tournaments@acbl.org or rulings@acbl.org. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 14:10:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA27846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:10:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp4.erols.com (smtp4.erols.com [207.172.3.237]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27841 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:10:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-238-27.s27.tnt2.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.238.27]) by smtp4.erols.com (8.8.8/smtp-v1) with SMTP id AAA18321 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000601bebdf7$6869f9a0$1bee7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:09:11 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 9:15 PM Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) [snip] > Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has > no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and > has no legal force. Where is the regulation that says opening > understrength on an infrequent occasion is illegal? The ACBL's > *Duplicate Decisions* says it is merely a "deviation," not illegal. > > > > > In ACBL land, playing 10-12 HCP NT you can open 1NT on QJ2 J432 QJ2 > QJ2, but > > are subject to penalty if you open this one: KT9, T9, AT987, QT9. > This > > example is not a joke. > > That is baloney, IMO, and is a joke. > > Since I am fuming, I had better sign off. > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > The articles are entitled "Ethics at the Bridge Table" and appear in the August and November 1995 ACBL Bulletins. Agreed that they are probably Meckstroth's personal opinions and may carry no legal force. So what? The Bulletin is the official publication of the ACBL. It is the only regular communication between the ACBL and its members. The articles are not marked as editorials. How is the membership supposed to know if it's official or not? Most ACBL members do not read Duplicate Decisions, or look up the minutes of the BoD. They read the Bulletin. If a rule or regulation is presented there as ACBL policy, then to all practical intents and purposes it *is* policy. The membership has been told in the official ACBL publication that they cannot open a 9-point 1 NT and still play conventional responses. For most, that's the end of it. Hirsch Just in case you're not fuming enough, here are some quotes: >From Aug '95: "...A 1NT opening of fewer than 10 points is deemed to be destructive...So is it OK to open a great 9-point hand that is worth 10? No. It's certainly OK to open a 15-17 point NT with 14, why not here? 'Borrowing' a point to open a strong notrump is not destructive in any way, but the mini notrump is a destructive device...A pair who opens 1NT on a 9-point hand is considered to have an agreement. A second occurrence will result in that pair's not being allowed to play any conventions over their mini notrump. So what should you do if someone opens a 9-point notrump? Two things: (1) call the director to report it and (2) fill out a player memo for the recorder in your district. Destructive methods such as these deserve attention." >From Nov '95 (further explanation of the first article): "...The literal meaning of the term 'destructive' applies to the mini- 1NT only in regards to 9-point openers. The ACBL policy disallows bids that are purely destructive in nature. A 1NT opening of less than 10 HCP is in this family. The only reason this is apporached so severely is because of the rules and regulations regarding 1NT openings. A pair who opens a 9-point NT more than once is considered to have an implies agreement. Bear in mind as well that, unless you are willing to forego playing conventions over 1NT, you are now allowed to have an explicit agreement that a 1 NT opener can be a 9-point hand (sic). A few responses expressed concern that this type of strict regulation might creep into other situations at bridge. Be assured this will NOT happen. To occasionally deviate from one's normal high-card range for a particular bid, such as a point range for a weak two-bid, is considered normal. Players will always have the right to exercise their bridge judgment..." From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 18:48:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA28284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:48:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA28279 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:47:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19990624084735.IMDJ26247.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:47:35 -0700 From: brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) To: Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:47:05 GMT Message-ID: <3773ea4e.1471609@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:15:22 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has >no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and >has no legal force. Where is the regulation that says opening >understrength on an infrequent occasion is illegal? The ACBL's >*Duplicate Decisions* says it is merely a "deviation," not illegal. > I read Meckstroth's article, too. If it was really meant to be a purely personal statement, then all I can say is that the editor of the bulletin needs to learn to put a disclaimer at the bottom of a contentious column, or PROMINENTLY in the index or foreword, to the effect that their columnists are expressing personal opinions which may not reflect either the views of the ACBL or current laws. I've read a few bulletins since I moved to the USA, and I can't recollect seeing any such statement. If my memory is at fault, I'm sure someone will point it out to me. Meckstroth may not have any position in the ACBL, but he's known as one of the USA's top players, and like it or not, if he publishes an article in the official publication of the ACBL, particularly one that SOUNDS as authoritative as his did, a lot of players (who apparently do not have easy access to "Duplicate Decisions") are going to think that someone of Meckstroth's status in the game HAS to know what he's talking about. Assuming for the moment that Marv is correct about ACBL policy on 9 HCP 1NT openers, then even if 100% of ACBL and club directors know what the correct ruling is, publishing such a misleading statement by a well-known expert without a disclaimer or (AFAIR) a correction is still nothing short of idiocy. Does the ACBL really want to generate unnecessary work for its TDs? In the absence of any correction to Meckstroth's article in a later bulletin, I'd suspect that at the very least, the ACBL lawmakers were not unhappy to see what the article said, even if it wasn't accurate. Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 20:57:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA28462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:57:30 +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 UAA28457 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:57:24 +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; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 06:55:42 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000601bebdf7$6869f9a0$1bee7ad1@hdavis> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00 700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1. 32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@ pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 06:50:51 -0400 To: "Hirsch Davis" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:09 AM -0400 6/24/99, Hirsch Davis wrote, quoting the ACBL Bulletin: >Players will always have the right to exercise their >bridge judgment..." Except when they're playing a 10-12 HCP 1NT opening. 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/AwUBN3IPCL2UW3au93vOEQLaMACgl5FFyzN5qzeUyf55j6lf9m4n/fsAoK5E ndImli72GldxEeb82rgo0EhQ =9VQx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 22:43:12 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA28812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:43:12 +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 WAA28805 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:43:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19201 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990624084345.006f28f4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:43:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy In-Reply-To: <006601bebdba$69b09720$7b9c5ccf@host> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:53 PM 6/23/99 -0400, Craig wrote: >I think this section goes back to the original EHAA which went over in >ACBLland with all the placidity of a forcing pass. When one so thoroughly >seeks the random chaotic result, one is completely preventing the opponents >from employing any of their own system. This would appear to constitute an >HUM under almost any typically accepted definition, and it seems reasonable >to even an unrepentant psycher like me to regulate or ban it. (It does sound >like a bully system to allow at the annual club party, but effectively >prevents anyone from playing serious bridge. It's rather like dealing four >at a time without a shuffle as in train bridge...a variant, but not really >bridge.) This is rather off-topic, but I feel compelled to set the record straight about EHAA. The original EHAA, the origins of which aren't known in detail, dates from the 1950s. A number of top-level experts of the day (mostly in the New York area) experimented with it, including, among others, Toby Stone, as did Syd Levey, who, amusingly in retrospect, served as President of the ACBL during the 70s, when the flap was at its height, and who was known to have played EHAA at at least one NABC during his term as President. It was the first system to incorporate "mini" 1NT openings (when I learned the system in the 60s they were 9-12, now 10-12 due to ACBL rules) and to allow weak 2-bids routinely on 5-card suits (with a minimum of 6 HCP). Opening bids at the 1-level are almost Roth-Stonish, rather sounder than even prevailing practice in the 50s, much sounder than is now typical of other systems. Overall it is really a rather conservative and disciplined system, which, by today's standards, is quaintly old-fashioned, based as it is in 50s Goren rather than modern Standard. Sometime in the early 70s, the name "EHAA" was co-opted by a pair of college students for a home-brew system of their own. This system found its way to an AC at an NABC. The result was a decree by the ACBL which banned "systems based on light initial actions and frequent psychic bids (such as EHAA)". That parenthetical note caused no end of problems for "real" EHAA players, whose methods included neither light initial actions nor frequent psychic bids. For the next two decades, people who had been playing EHAA continued to do so, but, to avoid running afoul of the ACBL's decree, could not call their system "EHAA" (my own habit was to write "Natural but different" under "General approach"). During this time I was twice personally hauled in front of NABC ACs, accused of "playing EHAA" (which I was). On both occasions, the ACs reviewed our methods and found them perfectly legal and acceptable. Oddly, someone at the ACBL must have known all this, since an accurate but brief description of 50s EHAA, with no mention of light initial actions or frequent psychs, appeared during this period in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (it's still there). Today the flap has died away, and EHAA players, albeit only recently, have gone back to writing "EHAA" on their CCs without fear of retribution. But there are still some folks who, because of these events (and that d----d parenthetical note), continue to incorrectly associate EHAA with "seek[ing] the random chaotic result". This is simply wrong. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 24 23:29:50 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA28962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:29:50 +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 XAA28957 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA22993 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990624093027.006fa3b4@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:30:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:15 PM 6/23/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >Hirsch Davis wrote: > >> Jeff Meckstroth wrote an article on this in the ACBL Bulletin a >couple of >> years ago. ISTR the rationale was that if you opened a 9 HCP NT >while >> playing 10-12, there was likely an implicit agreement that you were >really >> playing 9-12 NT, in which case conventional responses would be >barred. >> Since there is no way to tell whether the decision to open a 9 HCP >NT was in >> fact a bridge judgement or an implicit agreement, all 9 HCP NTs are >treated >> as implicit agreements. If the the partnership plays conventional >responses >> over a 9 HCP NT call, the ACBL treats this as an illegal agreement >subject >> to automatic penalty. Playing a 15-17 NT, you are allowed to >upgrade >> "good" 14 HCP hands more leniently, since conventional agreements >would >> still be allowed over the 14 HCP opener (although if this is done >regularly, >> the actual range is 14-17 and should be disclosed as such). As a >caveat, I'm >> writing this from memory and I read this a couple of years ago, so I >may be >> misstating this grossly. > >Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has >no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and >has no legal force. Where is the regulation that says opening >understrength on an infrequent occasion is illegal? The ACBL's >*Duplicate Decisions* says it is merely a "deviation," not illegal. I'm getting sick and tired of being told that what's written in the ACBL Bulletin, the official membership organ of the ACBL, claiming to be official policy and/or to expound ACBL regulations, is in fact either official or not official depending on the ACBL's whim of the moment. If it's printed in the Bulletin, and it claims to be official, it doesn't make a d----d bit of difference whether the legal hair-splitters want to say that it's not "officially official". They put it there, their members -- not just their ordinary players, but their TDs and AC members as well -- read it, believe it and enforce it -- and becomes de facto "official" policy whatever the revisionists might claim when it later proves embarrassing. >> In ACBL land, playing 10-12 HCP NT you can open 1NT on QJ2 J432 QJ2 >QJ2, but >> are subject to penalty if you open this one: KT9, T9, AT987, QT9. >This >> example is not a joke. > >That is baloney, IMO, and is a joke. It may be a joke, but it's no baloney. Within the past week my partner was given an automatic 1/4-board PP for doing exactly this. And now someone will tell me that he shouldn't have been, because the article in the ACBL Bulletin that said in plain English that doing this in ACBL competition incurs an automatic penalty was in some technical sense "unofficial". Pfui. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 00:11:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA29733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:11:39 +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 AAA29670 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:11:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (98AE36EE.ipt.aol.com [152.174.54.238]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id NFNSCQCZ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:07:09 -0400 Message-ID: <37723C47.18CFD8B8@ehc.edu> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:10:15 -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: revoke and claim References: <199906240011.RAA15240@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > John Probst wrote: > > > Entertainment at the YC :) > > > > 7 card ending: > > > > Qxxx > > - > > xxx > > - > > x > > K43 Immaterial > > - > > QTx > > AKx > > A98 > > A > > - > > Hearts are trumps > > > > West has failed to follow in clubs and has established his revoke > > (He didn't win the revoke trick. EW have won a subsequent trick.) > > > > South is declarer (lead in dummy) and claims "Playing on Hearts, 6 > > more tricks" > > > > I get called. South explains that he claimed knowing he can win all > > returns from West, and obviously is returning with a spade to hand. > > > > Your go :)) Cheers John > > I don't think we have enough information. The revoke and claim laws > should give declarer five tricks, because his line will get him three > (declarer plays ace-low in hearts, West winning; West returns a club, > ruffed by declarer; declarer plays a diamond, ruffed by West; West > cashes two more clubs, then concedes a spade), and the revoke penalty > is two tricks. However, we have to see if Law 64C applies, and I > believe the way to do that is to figure out how many tricks declarer > *should* have made if West had followed suit on the earlier trick. We > don't have enough information to figure that out. But we can reduce it to a likely scenario and an unlikely scenario: (1) West pitched a non-trump instead of following to the club. Declarer should start with the spades. If the pitch were a spade, then declarer would get two spades, with the third spade ruffed. A club is ruffed, then the ace of diamonds or a third spade is led. Pay now or pay later, West gets two hearts and no more. Similarly if the pitch were a diamond, declarer gets the one spade and one diamond, and a similar attack to the above occurs. (2) West ruffed the club, which means that North must have overruffed. In this case, West has done declarer a favor. Follow the above line and West should get just two hearts. John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu <---note new address!!! | From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 01:15:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:15:25 +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 BAA01618 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:15:15 +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 IAA28572; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:14:34 -0700 Message-Id: <199906241514.IAA28572@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:10:15 PDT." <37723C47.18CFD8B8@ehc.edu> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:14:35 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Kuchenbrod wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > John Probst wrote: > > > > > Entertainment at the YC :) > > > > > > 7 card ending: > > > > > > Qxxx > > > - > > > xxx > > > - > > > x > > > K43 Immaterial > > > - > > > QTx > > > AKx > > > A98 > > > A > > > - > > > Hearts are trumps > > > > > > West has failed to follow in clubs and has established his revoke > > > (He didn't win the revoke trick. EW have won a subsequent trick.) > > > > > > South is declarer (lead in dummy) and claims "Playing on Hearts, 6 > > > more tricks" > > > > > > I get called. South explains that he claimed knowing he can win all > > > returns from West, and obviously is returning with a spade to hand. > > > > > > Your go :)) Cheers John > > > > I don't think we have enough information. The revoke and claim laws > > should give declarer five tricks, because his line will get him three > > (declarer plays ace-low in hearts, West winning; West returns a club, > > ruffed by declarer; declarer plays a diamond, ruffed by West; West > > cashes two more clubs, then concedes a spade), and the revoke penalty > > is two tricks. However, we have to see if Law 64C applies, and I > > believe the way to do that is to figure out how many tricks declarer > > *should* have made if West had followed suit on the earlier trick. We > > don't have enough information to figure that out. > > But we can reduce it to a likely scenario and an unlikely scenario: > > (1) West pitched a non-trump instead of following to the club. > Declarer should start with the spades. . . . etc. Wait a minute...we don't even know *which* trick West revoked on! It doesn't have to be trick 6; West could have revoked at trick 2, and it's possible that if he had followed suit, something different would have happened in tricks 3-6, possibly because declarer would not have gotten the wrong impression that West was out of clubs. In order to apply L64C, we need to know what happened after the revoke, and what declarer "should" do at that point, and this involves cards that John hasn't told us about. We can't simply start the "what declarer should do" reasoning with the above layout---we have to go back further. In any case, it appears that John Probst was asking how to apply the claim and revoke laws, disregarding L46C (for the time being). To clarify my answer: My understanding (which may be wrong) is that we apply the claim laws without taking into account the fact that anyone revoked, including the law that doubtful points are to be resolved against the claimer. Then we apply the revoke penalty (knowing whether to apply the second half of L64A2, given that play has stopped, seems to be a big problem). Finally, if all this isn't fair to the claimer---which is likely, since he claimed under the mistaken impression that someone was out of a suit---then we apply L64C. Is this the correct algorithm for ruling this type of situation? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 01:16:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:16:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA01632 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id KAA19571; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:14:34 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019406; Thu Jun 24 10:12:56 1999 Message-ID: <002a01bebe54$36f97140$2bb420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:14:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 As I suspected, we have a misunderstanding. I never suggested telling the opponents you have 3+ diamonds...which is not true in simple precision. With a void or singleton diamond you would open 2D; the one diamond bid is the catchall for all other 11\15 hcp hands that are not balanced 13-15 (1N), 16+ (1C), club six bagger or strong five bagger (2C) or five card + major. It always shows diamond length on a convention card as 2+. I (MIS)presumed you were referring to simple precision properly disclosed on the convention card, thus could not see where there could be any CPU here. -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 9:52 PM Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy >Craig Senior wrote: >>Am I just being dense or did you perchance word this example less clearly >>than the rest of your fine post? > >>From: David Stevenson > >>>[3] It is a CPU, such as opening 1D on >>> >>> KQx >>> Jxxx >>> KQ >>> Jxxx >>> >>>when playing Precision, where this is the normal opening on such a hand. > >>How can opening 1D on this hand in simple precision be a psych or a CPU? As >>you point out, this IS the normal opening on this hand. With a 13-15 1NT as >>per Wei/Anderson, no 5 card major and 11-15 HCP whatever else would you open >>it? With a 12-14 HCP range stated it would appear to be a judgement call, >>though I would prefer to see the convention card revealing that the >>agreement is 12+ to 14. Still if we would not consider a bid of 1D playing a >>15-17 nt a psych or cpu on KJx KQ QJxx QJxx we should not consider it so in >>the example hand even if you would always open it 1D. This, to me, is a >>clear example of style or judgement, not of a CPU. What do others think? > > So it is the normal opening. Why tell opponents that you play 1D as >3+ diamonds when you don't? That's a CPU. > > ----------- > >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>Not to speak for David, but after looking at his previous post, I >>believe he means it's a CPU because you have "3+ diamonds" written on >>your convention card. If that's what your convention card says, and >>your agreement is that a 2-card 1D opening is normal, then your >>mismarked convention card might be considered a CPU---and should >>definitely be considered misinformation. The fact that you *might* >>open this 1D if you were playing a different version of Precision more >>in accord with your convention card isn't relevant. > > Exactly. You have spoken for David very accurately! > >-- >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 Jun 25 01:18:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:18:21 +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 BAA01667 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:18:12 +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 LAA03590 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:18:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11033 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:18:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:18:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906241518.LAA11033@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Craig Senior" > A style card would only seem acceptable if there were a column headed > MYOB. Which are you suggesting: that the opponents are not entitled to the bridge information or that there is a more efficient way of informing them? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 01:43:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA01759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:43:50 +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 BAA01753 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:43:38 +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 LAA04527 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:43:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11076 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:43:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:43:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906241543.LAA11076@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has > no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and > has no legal force. Be that as it may, the Bulletin chose to print his article (or was it two articles?) and not to print any contradictory information. On the subject of knowing the regulations, I have just received a booklet entitled "1999 Handbook of Rules and Regulations." It has the ACBL logo and "American Contract Bridge League" on the cover, says "revised January 1999" on the title page, and on what would normally be the copyright page (which has no copyright notice) says "This revised edition of the ACBL Handbook of Rules and Regulations was edited by ACBL staff and the ACBL Board of Directors." The book is advertised on the ACBL web site and sells to members for $12 postpaid (at least in the US). The Foreword is remarkable, even bizarre, but I'm too lazy to quote it. Much of it seems inoperative anyway. I had no trouble purchasing the book from ACBL sales. At first glance, I find almost none of the "player regulations:" things like bid boxes, stop card use, psych regulations, etc., or the alert charts. The convention charts are included, though. The statement of the "Zero Tolerance Policy" is much different than what I remember. There is no statement that disciplinary penalties should normally be imposed for violations, for example. There are, however, guidelines for appeals and for disciplinary committees. Chyah, if you are reading this, is there an official source for player regulations? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 04:48:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 04:48:23 +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 EAA02492 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 04:48:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10xEXe-000MIP-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:48:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:55:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy References: <001501bebd95$328f9540$7b9c5ccf@host> <006801bebdf1$c89f3e80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006801bebdf1$c89f3e80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >In ACBL-land, "ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose >opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 >high-card points" (General Convention Chart). Whether the opening is a >problem elsewhere, I have no idea, but it certainly is not a psych or >CPU here. We are not interested in whether it is legal, but whether it is disclosed. If you play a 1D opening as 2+ diamonds and tell your opponents that you play it as 3+ diamonds then you have a concealed partnership understanding - and the GCC has exactly nothing to do with that. You cannot say that a bid is or is not a psyche or a CPU unless you know the players' agreements. Is opening 1D on 12 HCP a psyche? Yes, if you play a strong diamond system. If your normal opening on Jxx KQxx 54 AKxx is 1D, the fact that the GCC makes it legal does not stop it being a CPU if you tell your opponents that you are playing 1D as 3+ diamonds. Of course you can play it as 2+ diamonds, and if you tell your opponents so then there is no problem. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 04:54:36 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA02514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 04:54:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA02509 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 04:54:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA07189; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:53:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-11.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.43) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma007090; Thu Jun 24 13:52:44 1999 Message-ID: <001901bebe72$ebfe18c0$2bb420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:53:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 One continues to make all reasonable efforts to accomodate their physical disabilities...these are not their fault and do not deserve punishment. One may be expected to treat their rudenes, querulousness and the like as one might treat it from anyone else. If it rises to a level so severe as to prevent others' enjoyment of the game there are remedies in the proprieties. Blindness for example is no excuse for foul language; deafness does not excuse lewd conduct. If they are taking unfair advantage in a bridge sense (UI? undisclosed partnership agreements? out and out cheating?) take the same action you would sans the handicap. It is not requisite upon decent people to accomodate others'ethical disabilities. If the problem is just that these are rather unpleasant, antisocial individuals, they might be banned (after repeated warnings) from some private clubs for their impolite conduct. In a tournament setting they should in no way be immune from either procedural or disciplinary action if their behaviour is repulsive enough. -- Craig Senior >David Stevenson wrote: > Perhaps we might move on. There is a feeling amongst the list [and it >is stronger in emails I have received] that not to make allowances for >the disabled is unreasonable [and possibly illegal in the USA]. > > I have played against blind players. My partner and I read the cards >out and it would never have occurred to us to do anything else. We were >very impressed that if she forgot what was left in dummy [they were a >married couple, both blind] then we never had to tell her: he did! > > However, the problem that led to my initial post is slightly more >complicated: the disabled players manage to upset nearly all their >opponents! While several people do their best for them the feeling is >that they take advantage, and they are not nice people. They have >seriously upset *several* opponents. > > I am being bombarded by emails from a friend of mine [who reads BLML] >about how unreasonable it is to do anything but bend over backwards for >disabled people. Yeah, maybe. The most common disabled person does not >make it a life work to upset people. As a result, everyone tries to >help such a person, and there is no problem. Now, what about a person >who is disabled in some way, and everyone dislikes them and thinks they >are taking advantage. What then? > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 05:16:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA02573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 05:16:51 +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 FAA02568 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 05:16:44 +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; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:15:04 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199906241543.LAA11076@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:08:31 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:43 AM -0400 6/24/99, Steve Willner wrote: >On the subject of knowing the regulations, I have just received a >booklet entitled "1999 Handbook of Rules and Regulations." I have a copy. It seems designed to perhaps aid tournament organizers and clubs with some of the mechanics needed, but if it's designed, as the Foreword says "To provide members, organizers of sanction bridge games , and elected officials responsible for the administration of bridge with details of the rules and regulations and politices and procedures of ACBL", then it fails miserably. When I bought this thing, I was hoping for something along the lines of the EBU's "orange book" (which, IIRC, is distributed free to EBU members). It's not even close. 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/AwUBN3KEEb2UW3au93vOEQI5/gCeKY5bMfozp/2RFxB+v/yxLzSehWEAnAlZ S5+8hAtgBMEzpDwC8A4E4g3f =Gril -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 06:12:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:12:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA02754 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:12:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (216-164-229-192.s446.tnt8.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [216.164.229.192]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28858 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:12:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00fd01bebe7d$df86dea0$c0e5a4d8@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:12:22 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 9:15 PM Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) [snip] > Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has > no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and > has no legal force. Where is the regulation that says opening > understrength on an infrequent occasion is illegal? The ACBL's > *Duplicate Decisions* says it is merely a "deviation," not illegal. > [snip] Alas, my copy of "Duplicate Decisions" is out of date (1991). Perhaps the wording has changed since then. However, the wording in my copy, under "Prohibited Bids and Procedures" states: "4. No conventions will be permitted in response to 1NT openings which have fewer than 10 HCP or a range greater than 5 HCP (for example, 13-18 point notrump openings) or two non-consecutive ranges of 3 points. No conventions will be allowed in response to weak two-bids, which by partnership agreement may be fewer than 5 HCP or which, by partnership agreement, have a range of more than 7 HCP, or which might contain fewer than five cards in the suit." Note the difference in treatment between the weak two-bids and the NT ranges. The restrictions on weak two-bids are dependent on partnership agreements. Allowance is made in the wording so that even if a player makes an asystemic call that violates the agreement, conventional responses are still permitted as long as the *agreements* are permitted. However, the qualifier "by partnership agreement" which appears twice in the sentence on weak two-bids, does not appear at all in the sentence describing responses to NT openings. Sure looks to me like an absolute prohibition of conventional responses to *all* 1NT bids less than 10 HCP. Perhaps the wording is changed in the latest edition? Or perhaps "Duplicate Decisions" does not reflect "official" ACBL policy? BTW there is an interesting sentence further down the page: "If, however, a player psyches a particular bid more than once with the same partner, he is said to have established an implicit agreement." Perhaps this wasn't "official" ACBL policy either? Hirsch For those outside of the ACBL, "Duplicate Decisions" is a guide to rulings published by the ACBL for use by club Directors. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 06:39:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA02864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:39:09 +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 GAA02859 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 06:38:58 +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 QAA13750 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA11315 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:39:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:39:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906242039.QAA11315@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Alas, my copy of "Duplicate Decisions" is out of date (1991). Perhaps the > wording has changed since then. However, the wording in my copy, under > "Prohibited Bids and Procedures" states: The relevant prohibitions are now included in the respective Convention Charts, http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/convchrt.htm . Rather confusingly, the restrictions are in the "Responses and Rebids" section instead of the "Disallowed" section, but here are the ones from the GCC: 6.ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards.) [I read this as saying the restrictions on weak two-bids apply only to this particular item, and conventions allowed by another section would still be permissible even after weak two-bids that don't meet the restrictions. For example, Blackwood would be permitted but Ogust would not be. Not everyone reads this text the same way as I do, though. Some think the intent is to prohibit all conventions.] 9.ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct overcall. Except no conventional responses or rebids are allowed over natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges). Further, a conventional defense to a conventional defense is not permitted. [This, on the other hand, really does prohibit all conventions after a non-conforming notrump opening or direct overcall.] From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 07:10:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:10:25 +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 HAA02956 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:10:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA28848 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990624171104.006f3d54@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:11:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <199906241518.LAA11033@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:18 AM 6/24/99 -0400, Steve wrote: >> From: "Craig Senior" >> A style card would only seem acceptable if there were a column headed >> MYOB. > >Which are you suggesting: that the opponents are not entitled to the >bridge information or that there is a more efficient way of informing >them? Perhaps what Craig is saying is that in order for me to reveal to my opponents *everything* that might affect my choice of calls in some situation, I will have to tell them what I drank (or smoked) when I got up this morning, and whom I slept with last night. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 07:20:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA02989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:20:55 +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 HAA02984 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:20:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10xGvE-0007ea-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:20:37 +0000 Message-ID: <2W2cUaA0Poc3Ewix@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:16:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy References: <002a01bebe54$36f97140$2bb420cc@host> In-Reply-To: <002a01bebe54$36f97140$2bb420cc@host> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >As I suspected, we have a misunderstanding. I never suggested telling the >opponents you have 3+ diamonds...which is not true in simple precision. With >a void or singleton diamond you would open 2D; the one diamond bid is the >catchall for all other 11\15 hcp hands that are not balanced 13-15 (1N), 16+ >(1C), club six bagger or strong five bagger (2C) or five card + major. It >always shows diamond length on a convention card as 2+. I (MIS)presumed you >were referring to simple precision properly disclosed on the convention >card, thus could not see where there could be any CPU here. Well, it was my article originally. I said that when a pair claims to be playing 3+ diamonds and opens 1D on two diamonds then there are four possibilities. I repeat the article [ignore this everyone who understood it originally!]: ------- Ed Reppert wrote: >Marv wrote: >Heh. In the version of Precision I play with my regular partner, opening 1D >on as few as 2 diamonds is a defined part of the system. That aside, if my >CC says "3 or more diamonds", is opening with 2 a "gross distortion" of my >distribution? I don't think so. This section isn't talking about psyches - >it's talking about treatments (or deviations - see below). One of the most destructive comments to good directing that I have read is the one that the ACBL has said that one card different is a deviation rather than a psyche. This is so often not the case. When players have quoted this regulation they then give examples such as this: xxx AKQT Qxx Kxx and open 1H playing 5-card majors: is this a psyche? No, it isn't, and that proves nothing, about the value of this regulation. It is not a gross distortion, it is a judgement call. AKQTx xxxx Qx Kx So on the next hand someone opens 1H on this hand, playing 5-card majors: is this a psyche? Yes, of course: it is a gross distortion. This one card different thing is just useless. Deciding what is a psyche involves judgement. Of course, it is valuable to point out that a one card deficit is not necessarily a psyche, but using that comment should be tempered with common-sense. If your CC says 3+D, and you open 1D with two diamonds, then there are four possibilities: [1] It is a psyche, such as opening 1D on AKQTx xxxx Qx Kx with intent to mislead. [2] It is a deviation, such as opening 1D on KQx Jxxx KQ Jxxx when playing Precision: the correct bid by your methods is 1NT, but you feel the risk vulnerable on a bad 12-count is such that you look for something else to do. [3] It is a CPU, such as opening 1D on KQx Jxxx KQ Jxxx when playing Precision, where this is the normal opening on such a hand. [4] It is a misbid, because you have mis-sorted your hand, or forgotten which version of Precision you are playing. ------- It is just not good enough to say that a player is one card short therefore it is a deviation. -- 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 Jun 25 08:09:34 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:09:34 +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 IAA03069 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:09:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehbd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.109]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA19256 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990624180717.0077a7a0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:07:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990623081417.0068e470@pop.cais.com> References: <00bd01bebc84$fbea64e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:14 AM 6/23/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >At 12:58 AM 6/22/99 -0700, Marvin wrote: >>Frivolous Psychic Bidding -- Any psychic action inspired by a spirit of >>malicious mischief or lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous. > >Which brings us back to the Oakie article, where he says, in effect, that a >psych is, by consensus, a losing tactic, leaving the door open for ruling >against any psych whatsoever as "inspired by a... lack of will to win". > The most ironic part of this particular bit of nonsense (the policy, not Eric's comments) is that only a successful psych is apt to come to the attention of the authorities, so the judgement that a psych was "inspired by a... lack of will to win" is, on its face ridiculous in most cases. But while I am completely sympathetic to Eric, et al, on this issue, I think it is unsporting of us to jump quite so hard on folks who are so ill-equipped to come to their own defense. The people in Memphis are not generally qualified to formulate carefully considered regulations. They are, in the main, bureaucrats, with a constituency which is overwhelmingly hostile to psychic bidders and not overly concerned about the niceties of L40D. Their primary interest lies in meeting the perceived interest of that constituency, while avoiding as far as possible any outright contravention of the Laws. In this latter aim they are abetted by a distinctly laissez faire attitude within the WBF, which is understandably reluctant to try and enforce their written Laws within the internal jurisdiction of an SO. I am also sympathetic to the inherent difficulty in regulating in this area. In addition to the pressure from the generic LOL's to come down hard on psychs (along with anything else that seems new-fangled or difficult), there are legitimate concerns related to potential CPU's in a partnership that psychs frequently, and very little effective mechanism for policing these. As easy as it is to make sport of this policy, I have little confidence in my own ability to craft a better one, and would challenge my confederates to light a candle, by way of offering a reasonable alternative, rather than just curse the darkness that Mr. Oakie and the rest have bequeathed us in the form of this contradictory and possibly illegal policy. On a separate matter, I share Eric's concern about the ineffectual systems for communicating official policy to the membership at large, along with his view that articles written by or at the request of ACBL officials and published in ACBL organs (i.e., the Bulletin, the Encyclopedia) should be understood as communication of official policy, unless superceded by equally public dicta. I am sure it is simple incompetence, rather than some secret Star Chamber consipiracy, that keeps this policy buried in an obscure and fundamentally unavailable medium, rather than publishing it for the edification of the membership. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 08:54:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA03134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:54:48 +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 IAA03129 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:54:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (pool-207-205-156-51.lsan.grid.net [207.205.156.51]) by smtp4.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA29074 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:54:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3772B7B4.B328EFDC@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:56:52 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" 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: ACBL Psych Policy References: <00bd01bebc84$fbea64e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.19990624180717.0077a7a0@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" wrote: [much very thoughtful stuff, as usual, and...] > > I am also sympathetic to the inherent difficulty in regulating in this > area. In addition to the pressure from the generic LOL's to come down hard > on psychs (along with anything else that seems new-fangled or difficult), > there are legitimate concerns related to potential CPU's in a partnership > that psychs frequently, and very little effective mechanism for policing > these. As easy as it is to make sport of this policy, I have little > confidence in my own ability to craft a better one, and would challenge my > confederates to light a candle, by way of offering a reasonable > alternative, rather than just curse the darkness that Mr. Oakie and the > rest have bequeathed us in the form of this contradictory and possibly > illegal policy. > Well, I think the self-reporting systems (dodging bricks... OW!) seem like they ought to work, and seem appropriate. Every psych is reported with the hand, and the district keeps a record of the hands. Some players will doubtless have 100 psych reports in a couple of years; the trend to look for is whether they are fielded routinely, or whether the psych is really a CPU, or whatever. I realize there is an enormous amount of hostility to this plan, but I don't particularly understand it, the hostility, that is. The psychers may also, at their request, show hands where they fielded the psych and it turned out, rather unfortunately for them, not to be psychic. Such evidence would be very useful to determine whether partnership table action is a giveaway, or if it's something else. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 09:12:55 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:55 +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 JAA03186 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10xIfZ-000DS3-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:12:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:59:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C WBF Laws Committee C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from OKBridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side OTOH On the other hand POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn [or] POOT Play-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RotG Rub-of-the-green RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for Unacceptable Behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3Ha 3H alerted Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on my Bridgepage. -- 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 Jun 25 09:12:50 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:50 +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 JAA03184 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:12:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10xIfY-000DS2-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:12:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 22:36:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00fd01bebe7d$df86dea0$c0e5a4d8@hdavis> In-Reply-To: <00fd01bebe7d$df86dea0$c0e5a4d8@hdavis> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >BTW there is an interesting sentence further down the page: > >"If, however, a player psyches a particular bid more than once with the same >partner, he is said to have established an implicit agreement." It now says "If, however, a player psyches a particular bid more than once with the same partner, he may be deemed to have established an implicit agreement." which is a more reasonable approach. >Perhaps this wasn't "official" ACBL policy either? -- 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 Jun 25 09:19:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:19:30 +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 JAA03243 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:19:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10xIm1-000NGp-0A for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:19:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:12:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990624084345.006f28f4@pop.cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.19990624084345.006f28f4@pop.cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 04:53 PM 6/23/99 -0400, Craig wrote: > > >This is rather off-topic, but I feel compelled to set the record straight >about EHAA. > snip >Today the flap has died away, and EHAA players, albeit only recently, have >gone back to writing "EHAA" on their CCs without fear of retribution. > >But there are still some folks who, because of these events (and that >d----d parenthetical note), continue to incorrectly associate EHAA with >"seek[ing] the random chaotic result". This is simply wrong. > With our UK 5-level licencing system, where level 3 would be considered the normal club game, and level 4 a major tourney or the bearpit on Fridays, we can play EHAA at level 2. (Equivalent to yellow card). Why? Because it is essentially natural, and is not difficult to defend against. eg If you open 1D,2D or 3D you have Ds :))) Why the fuss? Sadly I'm down to 59% from 61% in 12 outings with it this year. Had a 45% game a month ago in the social dupe playing with a UK International. Ah well, it works badly against palookas :)) Cheers john > >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 Fri Jun 25 09:39:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA03325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:39:08 +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 JAA03320 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:39:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10xJ4t-0002a8-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:38:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:37:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-Reply-To: <199906241514.IAA28572@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906241514.IAA28572@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >In any case, it appears that John Probst was asking how to apply the >claim and revoke laws, disregarding L46C (for the time being). To >clarify my answer: My understanding (which may be wrong) is that we >apply the claim laws without taking into account the fact that anyone >revoked, including the law that doubtful points are to be resolved >against the claimer. Then we apply the revoke penalty (knowing >whether to apply the second half of L64A2, given that play has >stopped, seems to be a big problem). Finally, if all this isn't fair >to the claimer---which is likely, since he claimed under the mistaken >impression that someone was out of a suit---then we apply L64C. Is >this the correct algorithm for ruling this type of situation? > > -- Adam This is indeed what I believe should be done. btw the revoke trick was not won by the revoker, and the revoke was established. The play was routine up to the point of the claim. 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 Jun 25 10:33:21 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:33:21 +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 KAA03513 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:33:13 +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 RAA07776; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:32:29 -0700 Message-Id: <199906250032.RAA07776@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:37:13 PDT." Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:32:31 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > This is indeed what I believe should be done. btw the revoke trick was > not won by the revoker, and the revoke was established. The play was > routine up to the point of the claim. john OK, well now I have almost enough information to apply L64C! I still maintain that declarer gets 5 tricks by the revoke and claim laws, before we see if L64C applies. Here's the layout again: > 7 card ending: > > Qxxx > - > xxx > - > x > K43 Immaterial > - > QTx > AKx > A98 > A > - > Hearts are trumps What would have happened if West hadn't revoked earlier? John says the play was routine up to the point of the claim, so I'll assume that part of the play would remain unchanged. At this point, we have to determine whether the play of this layout would have resulted in 6 tricks for declarer. The only way this is reasonably possible is if declarer concedes a trump trick to West, and West does not continue clubs. What if I had to apply L12C2? I have to determine whether it is "likely" or "at all probable" that the above would have happened. I still don't have enough information, since I haven't seen the auction or the play up to this point. It seems likely that declarer might have played to concede a trump trick to West; but I can't tell, without more information, how likely it is that West would figure out to continue clubs. If it's likely he wouldn't, declarer gets 6 tricks. If it's highly implausible that West wouldn't force in clubs, declarer gets 5 tricks. The in-between case, where it's not "likely" but *is* "at all probable" that West wouldn't continue clubs, is interesting. If I had to apply L12C2, there would be a split score, with declarer's score based on 5 more tricks for declarer and E-W's score based on 6. But does this law apply at all? First we have to get through the condition of L64C; and if an assigned adjusted score would give declarer no more tricks than the revoke penalty gave him, can we really consider him "insufficiently compensated"? If not, then perhaps L64C won't let us apply L12C2 after all, even though we can consider the opponents to be "insufficiently penalized". To state it more generally: A revoke occurs, and we find that with the revoke penalty, the non-offender gets N tricks. We also find that if the irregularity had not occurred, the "likely" provision of 12C2 gives the non-offender N tricks, and the "at all probable" provision gives him N+1 tricks. It's pretty clear that the NO's score will be based on N tricks, but do we assign a split score or not? My feeling is that the equity mandated by L64C demands a split score, even though this doesn't result in any additional compensation for the NO; but I'm not sure the wording of the Laws allows this. What do you all think? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 11:38:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:38:57 +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 LAA03640 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:38:50 +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 SAA10214 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012201bebeab$4370bee0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000601bebdf7$6869f9a0$1bee7ad1@hdavis> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:28:07 -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 Hirsch Davis wrote: > From: Marvin L. French > > Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has > > no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and > > has no legal force. Where is the regulation that says opening > > understrength on an infrequent occasion is illegal? The ACBL's > > *Duplicate Decisions* says it is merely a "deviation," not illegal. > > > > > > > > In ACBL land, playing 10-12 HCP NT you can open 1NT on QJ2 J432 QJ2 > > QJ2, but > > > are subject to penalty if you open this one: KT9, T9, AT987, QT9. > > This > > > example is not a joke. > > > > That is baloney, IMO, and is a joke. > > > > Since I am fuming, I had better sign off. > > > > Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > > > > The articles are entitled "Ethics at the Bridge Table" and appear in the > August and November 1995 ACBL Bulletins. Agreed that they are probably > Meckstroth's personal opinions and may carry no legal force. So what? The > Bulletin is the official publication of the ACBL. It is the only regular > communication between the ACBL and its members. The articles are not marked > as editorials. How is the membership supposed to know if it's official or > not? I don't know. Ask Editor Brent Manley, who was not editor at the time (Henry Francis was editor then). > > Most ACBL members do not read Duplicate Decisions, or look up the minutes of > the BoD. They read the Bulletin. If a rule or regulation is presented > there as ACBL policy, then to all practical intents and purposes it *is* > policy> I do not see that what Meckstroth wrote was presented as ACBL policy, that is an assumption. > The membership has been told in the official ACBL publication that > they cannot open a 9-point 1 NT and still play conventional responses. For > most, that's the end of it. And the Serbs believe what they read in their publications also, so that's the end of it. If old *Bulletin* articles by lay persons constituted ACBL policy, new TDs would be given this material as part of their training. I don't believe this is so. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 11:49:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:49:03 +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 LAA03665 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:48:56 +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 SAA11857 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:48:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013501bebeac$ac2dfd20$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com><002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <3.0.1.32.19990624093027.006fa3b4@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:45:07 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > > > I'm getting sick and tired of being told that what's written in the ACBL > Bulletin, the official membership organ of the ACBL, claiming to be > official policy and/or to expound ACBL regulations, is in fact either > official or not official depending on the ACBL's whim of the moment. If > it's printed in the Bulletin, and it claims to be official, it doesn't make > a d----d bit of difference whether the legal hair-splitters want to say > that it's not "officially official". They put it there, their members -- > not just their ordinary players, but their TDs and AC members as well -- > read it, believe it and enforce it -- and becomes de facto "official" > policy whatever the revisionists might claim when it later proves > embarrassing. > > >> In ACBL land, playing 10-12 HCP NT you can open 1NT on QJ2 J432 QJ2 > >QJ2, but > >> are subject to penalty if you open this one: KT9, T9, AT987, QT9. > >This > >> example is not a joke. > > > >That is baloney, IMO, and is a joke. > > It may be a joke, but it's no baloney. Within the past week my partner was > given an automatic 1/4-board PP for doing exactly this. That was a mistake that should have been appealed. > > And now someone will tell me that he shouldn't have been, because the > article in the ACBL Bulletin that said in plain English that doing this in > ACBL competition incurs an automatic penalty was in some technical sense > "unofficial". Pfui. > The policy stated in the article is patently illegal (L40A, "A player may make any call....), contradicts a published ACBL regulation (minor deviations are okay), and cannot be traced to the regulatory body (BoD) of the ACBL. Why would anyone take it seriously? Pfui, indeed! Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 11:49:01 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:49:01 +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 LAA03663 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:48:53 +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 SAA11854 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013401bebeac$aba7b620$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3773ea4e.1471609@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:37:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 18:15:22 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has > >no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and > >has no legal force. Where is the regulation that says opening > >understrength on an infrequent occasion is illegal? The ACBL's > >*Duplicate Decisions* says it is merely a "deviation," not illegal. > > > > I read Meckstroth's article, too. If it was really meant to > be a purely personal statement, then all I can say is that > the editor of the bulletin needs to learn to put a > disclaimer at the bottom of a contentious column, or > PROMINENTLY in the index or foreword, to the effect that > their columnists are expressing personal opinions which may > not reflect either the views of the ACBL or current laws. > I've read a few bulletins since I moved to the USA, and I > can't recollect seeing any such statement. If my memory is > at fault, I'm sure someone will point it out to me. > > Meckstroth may not have any position in the ACBL, but he's > known as one of the USA's top players, and like it or not, > if he publishes an article in the official publication of > the ACBL, particularly one that SOUNDS as authoritative as > his did, a lot of players (who apparently do not have easy > access to "Duplicate Decisions") are going to think that > someone of Meckstroth's status in the game HAS to know what > he's talking about. Like Bobby Wolff? > > Assuming for the moment that Marv is correct about ACBL > policy on 9 HCP 1NT openers, then even if 100% of ACBL and > club directors know what the correct ruling is, publishing > such a misleading statement by a well-known expert without a > disclaimer or (AFAIR) a correction is still nothing short of > idiocy. Does the ACBL really want to generate unnecessary > work for its TDs? > In the absence of any correction to Meckstroth's article in > a later bulletin, I'd suspect that at the very least, the > ACBL lawmakers were not unhappy to see what the article > said, even if it wasn't accurate. Or, more likely, a few influential lawmakers (regulation makers would be more accurate), perhaps those who perpetrated the article. I don't believe the BoD had advance copies of this article for their approval. Somebody please write to Director Nadine Wood and find out what's going on in this area. She would know. I just don't have the time to do it myself. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 15:25:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:25:10 +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 PAA04000 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:24:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from pinehurst.net (pm2-4.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.34]) by minerva.pinehurst.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA19192; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:24:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <377312CD.8BA5ACAF@pinehurst.net> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:25:33 -0400 From: Nancy T Dressing X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I firmly believe that a handicapped or physically challenged person should be helped regarding only their physical handicap. Their manners and deportment should be the same as all players. Zero Tolerance...... Fortunately most of the people I know with handicaps or disabilities are all very nice people and a delight to assist. Nancy.. David Stevenson wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Suppose a player has extremely poor vision, and tunnel vision. > > > > This player would like the cards called as they are played [except > >when she is dummy]. This player would like to avoid bidding boxes, or > >at least not to use them herself, and for opponents and partner to read > >out the calls. > > > > Another player has arthritis very badly, and finds that bidding boxes > >cause pain after a time. This player would like to speak all calls. > > > > I should like comments about whether these requests are reasonable, > >legal and/or legally enforceable. I notice that some players find it > >difficult to concentrate and read out cards and calls. > > Perhaps we might move on. There is a feeling amongst the list [and it > is stronger in emails I have received] that not to make allowances for > the disabled is unreasonable [and possibly illegal in the USA]. > > I have played against blind players. My partner and I read the cards > out and it would never have occurred to us to do anything else. We were > very impressed that if she forgot what was left in dummy [they were a > married couple, both blind] then we never had to tell her: he did! > > However, the problem that led to my initial post is slightly more > complicated: the disabled players manage to upset nearly all their > opponents! While several people do their best for them the feeling is > that they take advantage, and they are not nice people. They have > seriously upset *several* opponents. > > I am being bombarded by emails from a friend of mine [who reads BLML] > about how unreasonable it is to do anything but bend over backwards for > disabled people. Yeah, maybe. The most common disabled person does not > make it a life work to upset people. As a result, everyone tries to > help such a person, and there is no problem. Now, what about a person > who is disabled in some way, and everyone dislikes them and thinks they > are taking advantage. What then? > > -- > 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 Jun 25 17:59:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA04266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:59:47 +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 RAA04261 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:59:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip123.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.123]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990625075922.LYHE13557.fep2@ip123.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:59:22 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:59:06 GMT Message-ID: <377934df.2188426@post.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: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thu, 24 Jun 1999 02:39:34 +0100 skrev David Stevenson: >help such a person, and there is no problem. Now, what about a person >who is disabled in some way, and everyone dislikes them and thinks they >are taking advantage. What then? Then one must address the problem as one would any similar problem caused by non-disabled persons. Maybe one's tolerance stretches a little further, and maybe it should, but that is all. ("non-disabled" is a nice word) Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 19:23:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA04484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:23:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (imail@ha1.rdc1.pa.home.com [24.2.5.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA04479 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 19:23:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com ([24.1.53.108]) by mail.rdc1.pa.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with SMTP id <19990625092251.NOWV26247.mail.rdc1.pa.home.com@cc33764-a.glou1.nj.home.com> for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 02:22:51 -0700 From: brian@meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:22:20 GMT Message-ID: <37744857.5251506@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3773ea4e.1471609@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> <013401bebeac$aba7b620$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <013401bebeac$aba7b620$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 18:37:51 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Or, more likely, a few influential lawmakers (regulation makers would be >more accurate), perhaps those who perpetrated the article. > Fair comment, I have no good reason to suggest it was unanimous. >I don't believe the BoD had advance copies of this article for their >approval. > Quite possibly not, but if the majority of them disapproved, you would think that they would at least have a correction, a letter or some other form of notification in the next Bulletin - or are we to assume that none of the BoD read the Bulletin? ;-) >Somebody please write to Director Nadine Wood and find out what's going >on in this area. She would know. I just don't have the time to do it >myself. > I'd oblige, if I had her e-mail address, but it may be a little better if it came from someone who is actually a member of the ACBL. Brian. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 25 20:14:19 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA04584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:14:19 +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 UAA04578 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10xSza-000DhD-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:13:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:35:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: revoke and claim References: <199906250032.RAA07776@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199906250032.RAA07776@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >To state it more generally: A revoke occurs, and we find that with the >revoke penalty, the non-offender gets N tricks. We also find that if >the irregularity had not occurred, the "likely" provision of 12C2 >gives the non-offender N tricks, and the "at all probable" provision >gives him N+1 tricks. It's pretty clear that the NO's score will be >based on N tricks, but do we assign a split score or not? My feeling >is that the equity mandated by L64C demands a split score, even though >this doesn't result in any additional compensation for the NO; but I'm >not sure the wording of the Laws allows this. L64C requires the TD to "assign an adjusted score". L12C2 tells the TD what to do if he is assigning an adjusted score. Therefore I believe you should follow the requirements of L12C2 which includes the possibility of a split. -- 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 Jun 25 22:21:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:21:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com [204.210.64.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04907 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:21:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from default.maine.rr.com (dt054n1d.maine.rr.com [24.95.20.29]) by proxye1-atm.maine.rr.com (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA14454 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:20:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990625081816.008931e0@maine.rr.com> X-Sender: timg@maine.rr.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:18:16 -0400 To: From: Tim Goodwin Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) In-Reply-To: <013401bebeac$aba7b620$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3773ea4e.1471609@mail.glou1.nj.home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:37 PM 6/24/99 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Somebody please write to Director Nadine Wood and find out what's going >on in this area. She would know. I just don't have the time to do it >myself. For those of you who don't know, there is a list of the ACBL BOD, complete with phone numbers, and address (postal and e-mail for those with e-mail) at: http://home.maine.rr.com/timg/coi/bod.html It really shouldn't take that long to write toone of them. Tim From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 00:50:06 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA07605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:50:06 +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 AAA07599 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 00:49:32 +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 KAA22746 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA14325; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:49:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906251449.KAA14325@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L75 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Brd 17 S K3 N E S W neither vul H J9 3NT(1) P P P Dlr N D AKQ97632 Imp Pairs C 3 (1) meant as gambling, not S AT4 S 752 alerted H K8762 H QT43 D J D 8 I was called to the table C KJ65 C QT742 before West's final pass. S QJ986 West complained that, when H A5 he asked what 3NT was, he D T54 was told, " no agreement". C A98 He felt that he was entitled to know what 3NT was, so he called me so that I could force his opps to tell him. I looked at the opponents' convention cards (they were both blank-- they had agreed to play together minutes before the start of the game, and had rather vaguely agreed to play "standard"). I asked them if they had ever played together before (no), or if they had discussed what 3NT was (again, no). I told the players to complete the board, and if there was a problem, to call me back. West objected because he still didn't know what 3NT meant. I told him that he was entitled to know the opponents' agreements per L75. I told him that if they had no agreement, South was not only not obliged to "guess", he was required not to guess at an explanation. West decided to pass. At the end of the hand West called me back, saying that he felt damaged. He claimed that, had he known that 3NT was gambling, he would have bid 4H. I ruled no damage (well, damage, I guess, but no redress). He was not happy. Here is the fun part: West is a director and club owner in the area. I often work with/for him. He also monitors BLML off & on, depending if I think something is particularly interesting. He runs games 5-6 times a week, and so doesn't have much time for full participation. He asked me to put this up to find out if my ruling was right or wrong. Was it? Two further points: West told me (lectured after the game?) that if a player has no agreement, he is "required" to treat it as "standard"; I disagree. I can find nothing in the Laws which require any such thing: is there? South told me the reason he passed with his 11 HCP was because he thought his partner would more likely go through 2C to show a strong balanced hand than do so with 3NT (his assessment of his pard's knowledge base, not an agreement: North is relatively young, plays in an advanced crowd, and is not a rubber bridge player; I do not think this meets the requirement of partnership experience, but is more general knowledge and experience). Finaly, and here I am pretty sure I was in error, I did not take East or West away from the table before the auction was over to ask what, if any, action they would have taken if 3NT was ruled misinformation. I think West was correct when he told me later that I should have done this. I also have no reason to think West would not bid 4H over 3NT. Tony (aka ac342) ps this was from a swiss pair game I ran (well tried to run). ten tables, 5x5 board rounds. Got in twenty boards; the last 3 rounds ran on time (aprox. 40min each); the first took nearly 1H 10min :-( My fault: the travellers got all screwed up (I told the players to score by table number, half did, most others scored by pair number, one scored by board number--next time, I'll use pickups!); I had 3 sets of duped boards: the 4 table group had a "hoarder" who kept an extra so as to have a board to play, while another table sat for ten minutes waiting for the next board in sequence (!) I thought I had worked out all the details, but failed to take into account the players...mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 01:23:56 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 01:23:56 +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 BAA07759 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 01:23:45 +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 IAA23311; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:23:05 -0700 Message-Id: <199906251523.IAA23311@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:35:54 PDT." Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:23:06 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >To state it more generally: A revoke occurs, and we find that with the > >revoke penalty, the non-offender gets N tricks. We also find that if > >the irregularity had not occurred, the "likely" provision of 12C2 > >gives the non-offender N tricks, and the "at all probable" provision > >gives him N+1 tricks. It's pretty clear that the NO's score will be > >based on N tricks, but do we assign a split score or not? My feeling > >is that the equity mandated by L64C demands a split score, even though > >this doesn't result in any additional compensation for the NO; but I'm > >not sure the wording of the Laws allows this. > > L64C requires the TD to "assign an adjusted score". L12C2 tells the > TD what to do if he is assigning an adjusted score. Therefore I believe > you should follow the requirements of L12C2 which includes the > possibility of a split. But only if L12C2 applies. Let me clarify: L64C requires the TD to assign an adjust score only under a certain condition: "When ... the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated ... for the damage caused". So we have to see if tihs condition is satisfied before we can apply L12C2. If L12C2 wouldn't provide any additional compensation for the NO (i.e. NO gets just N tricks either way), is the condition in L64C met, and can we still assign a split score? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 01:36:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA07865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 01:36:46 +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 BAA07859 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 01:36:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA18650 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:49:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990625113728.006a0fd8@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:37:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L75 In-Reply-To: <199906251449.KAA14325@freenet5.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:49 AM 6/25/99 -0400, ac342 wrote: >Brd 17 S K3 N E S W >neither vul H J9 3NT(1) P P P >Dlr N D AKQ97632 >Imp Pairs C 3 (1) meant as gambling, not > S AT4 S 752 alerted > H K8762 H QT43 > D J D 8 I was called to the table > C KJ65 C QT742 before West's final pass. > S QJ986 West complained that, when > H A5 he asked what 3NT was, he > D T54 was told, " no agreement". > C A98 He felt that he was entitled > to know what 3NT was, so he >called me so that I could force his opps to tell him. > I looked at the opponents' convention cards (they were both blank-- >they had agreed to play together minutes before the start of the game, >and had rather vaguely agreed to play "standard"). I asked them if >they had ever played together before (no), or if they had discussed >what 3NT was (again, no). I told the players to complete the board, >and if there was a problem, to call me back. > West objected because he still didn't know what 3NT meant. I told him >that he was entitled to know the opponents' agreements per L75. I told >him that if they had no agreement, South was not only not obliged to >"guess", he was required not to guess at an explanation. Absolutely correct. They had no agreement, and they told the opponents that they had no agreement. No MI there, so no bridge judgment involved -- a pure "finding of fact". > West decided to pass. > At the end of the hand West called me back, saying that he felt damaged. >He claimed that, had he known that 3NT was gambling, he would have bid >4H. I ruled no damage (well, damage, I guess, but no redress). He was not >happy. > Here is the fun part: West is a director and club owner in the area. >I often work with/for him. He also monitors BLML off & on, depending >if I think something is particularly interesting. He runs games >5-6 times a week, and so doesn't have much time for full participation. >He asked me to put this up to find out if my ruling was right or wrong. > Was it? Yes. It was right. There was no infraction; end of story. > Two further points: > West told me (lectured after the game?) that if a player has no >agreement, he is "required" to treat it as "standard"; I disagree. >I can find nothing in the Laws which require any such thing: is there? > South told me the reason he passed with his 11 HCP was because he >thought his partner would more likely go through 2C to show a strong >balanced hand than do so with 3NT (his assessment of his pard's >knowledge base, not an agreement: North is relatively young, plays >in an advanced crowd, and is not a rubber bridge player; I do not think >this meets the requirement of partnership experience, but is more general >knowledge and experience). > Finaly, and here I am pretty sure I was in error, I did not take >East or West away from the table before the auction was over to ask >what, if any, action they would have taken if 3NT was ruled misinformation. >I think West was correct when he told me later that I should have done >this. I also have no reason to think West would not bid 4H over 3NT. Taking players away from the table to ask what they would have bid absent the infraction is what you do when you may need to adjudicate redress should the infraction result in damage. When there is no infraction (as you ruled here, and as appears to be the case) there can be no redress, so what they would have done doesn't matter, and there's no reason to waste everyone's time. IMO your handling of the case was entirely correct. 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 Jun 26 02:11:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:11:00 +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 CAA08109 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:10:53 +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 JAA24110; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:10:16 -0700 Message-Id: <199906251610.JAA24110@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L75 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:49:17 PDT." <199906251449.KAA14325@freenet5.carleton.ca> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:10:17 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Brd 17 S K3 N E S W > neither vul H J9 3NT(1) P P P > Dlr N D AKQ97632 > Imp Pairs C 3 (1) meant as gambling, not > S AT4 S 752 alerted > H K8762 H QT43 > D J D 8 I was called to the table > C KJ65 C QT742 before West's final pass. > S QJ986 West complained that, when > H A5 he asked what 3NT was, he > D T54 was told, " no agreement". > C A98 He felt that he was entitled > to know what 3NT was, so he > called me so that I could force his opps to tell him. . . . . . . > At the end of the hand West called me back, saying that he felt damaged. > He claimed that, had he known that 3NT was gambling, he would have bid > 4H. I ruled no damage (well, damage, I guess, but no redress). Everything Eric said was of course right. But it appears that West wasn't damaged anyway, since 4H could result in -500 instead of the -430 I assume he actually got. (Of course, the opponents have to find a double and then find the right defense.) Also: > I also have no reason to think West would not bid 4H over 3NT. Other than the fact that coming in all by yourself at the 4-level on a poor 5-card suit, at IMPs, when you have no particular reason to think your partner has support and every reason to expect a bad break if partner has only moderate support, is crazy? Even if I knew what the 3NT meant, would I really want to make a bid that says "-400 isn't good enough for me, please give me -1100"? (OTOH, if I were playing Ripstra, I might use it here.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 02:24:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:24:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08156 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:24:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA21197; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:23:30 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.49) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma021164; Fri Jun 25 11:23:16 1999 Message-ID: <002101bebf27$36c0fe40$31b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: ACBL Psych Policy Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:02:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 I saw this: In the version of Precision I play with my regular partner, opening 1D >>on as few as 2 diamonds is a defined part of the system. then apparently went brain dead and missedwhere you wrote > If your CC says 3+D, and you open 1D with two diamonds, then there are >four possibilities With this qualification (that I somehow read right over you are unquestionably right.) I thought you referred to simple precision where the card would of course have disclosed 2+. Sorry From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 02:44:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:44:44 +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 CAA08237 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:44:32 +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 MAA12074 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:44:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA11956 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:44:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906251644.MAA11956@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: revoke and claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > L64C requires the TD to > assign an adjust score only under a certain condition: "When ... the > non-offending side is insufficiently compensated ... for the damage > caused". So we have to see if tihs condition is satisfied before we > can apply L12C2. If L12C2 wouldn't provide any additional > compensation for the NO (i.e. NO gets just N tricks either way), is > the condition in L64C met, and can we still assign a split score? If you read the law literally, I don't think L64C ever lets you adjust the OS score unless you also change the NOS score. L12C3 doesn't help either. You never get to either one unless the revoke damages the NOS more than the penalty compensates for. Should L64C be read literally? I don't much like the result. The revokers get the benefit of "likely," when all they would deserve for another kind of infraction is "at all probable." I would be quite happy to see an official interpretation that the law should be read as if it contained "or the offending side excessively rewarded," but absent official guidance, I think we have to apply L64C as it is written. That means there is no consideration of the OS score unless we need to adjust the NOS score. Once we do decide to adjust the NOS score, of course, we may adjust the OS score by more and give a split score (or L12C3 weighted score) of the usual sort. Another one for Grattan's notebook, it seems. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 02:51:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA08261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:51:16 +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 CAA08256 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 02:51:06 +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 MAA12231 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA11968 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:51:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:51:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906251651.MAA11968@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L75 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) > I told him > that he was entitled to know the opponents' agreements per L75. I told > him that if they had no agreement, South was not only not obliged to > "guess", he was required not to guess at an explanation. Exactly so, as others have already said. My only suggestion is that perhaps reading L75C from the FLB might have been helpful. > West told me (lectured after the game?) that if a player has no > agreement, he is "required" to treat it as "standard"; I disagree. > I can find nothing in the Laws which require any such thing: is there? Nope; quite the contrary. L40A comes to mind. > (his assessment of his pard's > knowledge base, not an agreement: North is relatively young, plays > in an advanced crowd, and is not a rubber bridge player; I do not think > this meets the requirement of partnership experience, but is more general > knowledge and experience). North's age is presumably as evident to West as to South, but the facts about North's usual playing venue may not be. If they are known to South and not to West, I believe they must be disclosed. It is still hard to imagine there was damage on this particular hand, but on another hand, there might have been. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 03:19:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA08312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 03:19:13 +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 DAA08305 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 03:19:01 +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 KAA02011 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01c601bebf2e$85381ac0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990604085118.00691764@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990609085702.00700874@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990620195653.00720424@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990621092031.00694220@pop.cais.com><3.0.1.32.19990622090117.006ee7fc@pop.cais.com> <3.0.1.32.19990623085738.006ee608@pop.cais.com> <002a01bebd8a$a0a8b4e0$82ba9e83@usuf2.usuhs.mil> <003301bebddf$859d7c80$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00fd01bebe7d$df86dea0$c0e5a4d8@hdavis> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:16:41 -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 Hirsch Davis wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > [snip] > > Jeff Meckstroth is not the official voice of the ACBL BoD, and he has > > no position in the ACBL. Whatever he wrote was personal opinion and > > has no legal force. Where is the regulation that says opening > > understrength on an infrequent occasion is illegal? The ACBL's > > *Duplicate Decisions* says it is merely a "deviation," not illegal. > > > [snip] > > Alas, my copy of "Duplicate Decisions" is out of date (1991). Perhaps the > wording has changed since then. However, the wording in my copy, under > "Prohibited Bids and Procedures" states: > > "4. No conventions will be permitted in response to 1NT openings which have > fewer than 10 HCP or a range greater than 5 HCP (for example, 13-18 point > notrump openings) or two non-consecutive ranges of 3 points. No conventions > will be allowed in response to weak two-bids, which by partnership agreement > may be fewer than 5 HCP or which, by partnership agreement, have a range of > more than 7 HCP, or which might contain fewer than five cards in the suit." This language remains in the current DD. > > Note the difference in treatment between the weak two-bids and the NT > ranges. The restrictions on weak two-bids are dependent on partnership > agreements. Allowance is made in the wording so that even if a player makes > an asystemic call that violates the agreement, conventional responses are > still permitted as long as the *agreements* are permitted. However, the > qualifier "by partnership agreement" which appears twice in the sentence on > weak two-bids, does not appear at all in the sentence describing responses > to NT openings. Sure looks to me like an absolute prohibition of > conventional responses to *all* 1NT bids less than 10 HCP. Even if partner is not aware of the deviation. Well spotted, but I don't think the distinction you see is there, as written. An actual 1NT bid can have only a certain number of HCP, not a range of HCP. The first sentence must logically refer to the partnership understanding, not to the bid itself. However, the subsequent sentences do create an implication that what the first sentence means is that any bid outside the range on the cc, no matter how rare, establishes the actual range being employed. That is a position of dubious legality. The last time the ACBL did that was with weak two bids, when it outlawed any weak two bid weaker than 6 HCP or stronger than 11 HCP. Johnny Crawford was the first to break that rule, I believe, at an NABC here in San Diego (Coronado, really). He opened a 12 HCP weak two bid, something like AKQJxx and outside queen, and was penalized for doing so. Later the permissible range was changed to include 12 HCP. Even later this stupid and illegal rule was dropped altogether. Now, like Phoenix rising from the ashes, it appears in a new guise. Let's see, the infraction is not opening a 9 HCP hand *per se*, and is not opening a 9 HCP having 10-14 on the cc *per se*, but is opening a 9 HCP hand having 10-14 on the cc AND having conventions on the cc associated with a 1NT opening (even if happen not to use them--1NT-P-3NT). That's quite a stretch. I don't see anything about an automatic penalty. If I were a TD, I would ignore "regulations" that look illegal and do not come directly from the BoD. TDs ignore *official* regulations all the time (e.g., cc-related, slow play, hand discussion, wandering around with no apparent purpose, etc.), so they can hardly say they must obey whatever they read in an ACBL publication. Besides, the "Deviation" section of the DD contradicts this "policy." When a document contradicts itself, a TD should observe the part that is not obviously illegal. > Perhaps the wording is changed in the latest edition? Or perhaps "Duplicate > Decisions" does not reflect "official" ACBL policy? Official ACBL policy is in the BoD minutes, at one time published in *The Bulletin*, then not published there but available for the asking, and now published on the ACBL website. When a writer of ACBL documents publishes what purports to be some policy or regulation, he/she should cite the BoD minutes (month/year) on which it is based. That is done in the Tech Files, and if an "Instruction" comes from the ACBL "Office" rather than directly from the BoD, a dated reference is provided. The DD and *Bulletin* should follow this practice. If the BoD decides to micromanage tournament regulations, as it has, then it should follow up and see that those regulations are published properly. No article or other statement of a regulation should be published without review and approval by the BoD, unless it quotes the BoD minutes exactly. > > BTW there is an interesting sentence further down the page: > > "If, however, a player psyches a particular bid more than once with the same > partner, he is said to have established an implicit agreement." > > Perhaps this wasn't "official" ACBL policy either? Wow, where did that come from? It is also in my current DD, although "said to have" is "may be deemed." Both phrases are "weasel words" that are typical of the language of bureaucracy. Don't say anything straight out, never use *is* or "has*, which could get you in trouble. "I didn't say it was so, I said 'it may be deemed.'" It is hard to give much weight to statements of that sort, especially when they violate the Laws. The origin of the expression "Weasal words" is interesting. It was given currency by Theodore Roosevelt. It refers to "words that destroy the force of a statement by equivocal qualification as a weasel ruins an egg by sucking out its contents while leaving it superficially intact." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) > For those outside of the ACBL, "Duplicate Decisions" is a guide to rulings > published by the ACBL for use by club Directors. One wonders what material is given to newly employed ACBL TDs, other than the Tech Files in ACBLScor. Is there a compilation of old *Bulletin* articles by lay persons put into their hands? I doubt it. Richard Beye or Ron Anderson (or ?) could do BLML a favor by quoting interesting material concerning Laws and regulationhs from Memphis directives sent to ACBL TDs. Surely they are not classified documents? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 04:23:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA08608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 04:23:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA08603 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 04:23:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id NAA09659; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:22:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-17.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.49) by dfw-ix14.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma009459; Fri Jun 25 13:21:59 1999 Message-ID: <007001bebf37$cd510ca0$31b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:23:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 Got it in one Eric. Craig S. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Thursday, June 24, 1999 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) >At 11:18 AM 6/24/99 -0400, Steve wrote: > >>> From: "Craig Senior" >>> A style card would only seem acceptable if there were a column headed >>> MYOB. >> >>Which are you suggesting: that the opponents are not entitled to the >>bridge information or that there is a more efficient way of informing >>them? > >Perhaps what Craig is saying is that in order for me to reveal to my >opponents *everything* that might affect my choice of calls in some >situation, I will have to tell them what I drank (or smoked) when I got up >this morning, and whom I slept with last night. > > >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 Jun 26 06:11:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA08910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 06:11:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from backrosh.inter.net.il (backrosh.inter.net.il [192.116.196.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA08904 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 06:11:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from internet-zahav.net (R-G-148-80.access.net.il [212.68.148.80] (may be forged)) by backrosh.inter.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA27018 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 23:11:03 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3773E297.F247A11E@internet-zahav.net> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 23:12:07 +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 - June 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 10th 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) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 8 years old 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 Jun 26 08:11:49 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA09251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:11:49 +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 IAA09246 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:11:40 +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 RAA21447 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:11:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0O4P504C Fri, 25 Jun 99 17:10:36 Message-ID: <9906251710.0O4P504@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 99 17:10:36 Subject: D-BLML LIST - To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I bring the announcement of a new member to my household. Louie is a multilingual poodle who is extremely outgoing. He has just arrived from the neighboring burg of Shreveport, Louisiana as his servant's health has deteriorated to the point that a parting was effected. I believe that he misses his dear Shreveport immensely since he is continually searching for his servant to give comfort. His adventures are great as evidenced by his large circle of friends even though he has just arrived. I can tell he is adept with the use of any kind of telephone because humans all over Houston are able to follow his instructions to make the local phone ring. Louie is so intelligent that he knows that I am not smart enough to teach him anything about bridge that he does not already know. His manners are impeccable and he never fails to keep his opinions to himself. But maybe that will change! Cheers Roger Pewick B>Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML members B>Here is the 10th release of the new famous club !!!! B>The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 B>will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). B>The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at B>Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. B>D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST B> (cats) B>Linda Trent - Panda , Gus (none) B>Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) B>Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) B>Irv Kostal - Sammy (4) B>Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) B> Nutmeg , Lucky B>Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) B>Eric Landau - Wendell (4) B>Bill Seagraves - Zoe (none) B>Jack Kryst - Darci (2) B>Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) B>Jan peter Pals - Turbo (none) B>Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) B>Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) B>Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) B>His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 8 years old black duckel - B>is the administrator of the new D-BLML. B>SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him B>too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations B>with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. B>Please be kind and send the data to update it. B>Dany B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 14:52:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA09858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:52:39 +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 OAA09853 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 14:52:32 +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 VAA13456 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <023501bebf8f$5d283fe0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906242039.QAA11315@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Chicken and Egg Problem (was Full Disclosure...) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:46:27 -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: "Hirsch Davis" > > Alas, my copy of "Duplicate Decisions" is out of date (1991). Perhaps the > > wording has changed since then. However, the wording in my copy, under > > "Prohibited Bids and Procedures" states: > > The relevant prohibitions are now included in the respective Convention > Charts, http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/convchrt.htm . Rather confusingly, > the restrictions are in the "Responses and Rebids" section instead of > the "Disallowed" section, but here are the ones from the GCC: > > 6.ARTIFICIAL BIDS over strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after > opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For this classification, by > partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be within a range of 7 HCP > and the suit must contain at least five cards.) What do you suppose the difference is between "over" and "after"? I prefer that "over" refer to a call immediately following an opponent's call, not partner's call. > [I read this as saying the restrictions on weak two-bids apply only to > this particular item, and conventions allowed by another section would > still be permissible even after weak two-bids that don't meet the > restrictions. For example, Blackwood would be permitted but Ogust > would not be. Not everyone reads this text the same way as I do, > though. Some think the intent is to prohibit all conventions.] Since the preposition is "after," I would think this means no subsequent artificial bids whatsoever, including Blackwood. It says "artificial," not "conventions," so perhaps a forcing natural bid, with conventional understandings about opener's rebid, would be legal. > > 9.ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct overcall. > Except no conventional responses or rebids are allowed over natural > notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 > HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have > two non-consecutive ranges). Further, a conventional defense to a > conventional defense is not permitted. > > [This, on the other hand, really does prohibit all conventions after a > non-conforming notrump opening or direct overcall.] > But only, IMO, if the non-conformance is reflected on the cc. Rare minor deviations from that should not count as range violations. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 16:22:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:22:09 +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 QAA09984 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:22:02 +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 XAA26728 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 23:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <032701bebf9b$dbac70a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Club Games Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 23:14:46 -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 This week's club games attended by wife Alice and me included: 1. A two-section straight Mitchell game, 22 tables, no duplication, with overall awards. Perfectly legal in ACBL-land, evidently, but should it be? Is it legal everywhere? 2. Alice's RHO passed in first position and her partner put out the STOP card, thinking he was first to bid, not noticing the pass. The TD ruled as if it had been a BOOT, gave the passer the option of accepting it (refused), and barred Alice from the rest of the auction. That is sort of logical, but surely not correct? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 20:43:30 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA10493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:43:30 +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 UAA10488 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 20:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmartin ([212.140.114.112]) by t21pst00-lrs.talk21.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA1061 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:42:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001401bebfc1$0e9fce60$70728cd4@cmartin> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: Club Games Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:44:15 +0100 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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: >This week's club games attended by wife Alice and me included: > >1. A two-section straight Mitchell game, 22 tables, no duplication, with >overall awards. Perfectly legal in ACBL-land, evidently, but should it be? >Is it legal everywhere? ######## Please provide more details. Do you mean that different sets of boards were used in the two sections? Was there a N/S and an E/W winner/ranking list or just a single ranking list with one overall winner? Were any rounds arrow-switched? ########### > >2. Alice's RHO passed in first position and her partner put out the STOP >card, thinking he was first to bid, not noticing the pass. The TD ruled as >if it had been a BOOT, gave the passer the option of accepting it >(refused), and barred Alice from the rest of the auction. That is sort of >logical, but surely not correct? ########## The Laws define a *bid* as specifying a number of odd tricks *and* a denomination. Anything less than this is not a bid but may be UI. The previous EBL Commentary also clearly stated that the director does not have the power to force a player to "complete" some utterance that is not a bid. ########## From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 21:04:10 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA10550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:04:10 +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 VAA10545 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:04:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip76.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.76]) by fep2.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990626110359.SJHC13557.fep2@ip76.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 13:03:59 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Club Games Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 11:03:42 GMT Message-ID: <3777b2a0.1586571@post.tele.dk> References: <032701bebf9b$dbac70a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <032701bebf9b$dbac70a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fri, 25 Jun 1999 23:14:46 -0700 skrev Marvin L. French: >2. Alice's RHO passed in first position and her partner put out the STOP >card, thinking he was first to bid, not noticing the pass. The TD ruled as >if it had been a BOOT, gave the passer the option of accepting it >(refused), and barred Alice from the rest of the auction. That is sort of >logical, but surely not correct? It cannot be a bid,or even a call, if he only showed the stop card. There's "only" UI. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 23:38:52 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:38:52 +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 XAA10848 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:38:45 +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 JAA13534 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA29554; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:38:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906261338.JAA29554@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Club Games Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >This week's club games attended by wife Alice and me included: > >1. A two-section straight Mitchell game, 22 tables, no duplication, with >overall awards. Perfectly legal in ACBL-land, evidently, but should it be? >Is it legal everywhere? > >2. Alice's RHO passed in first position and her partner put out the STOP >card, thinking he was first to bid, not noticing the pass. The TD ruled as >if it had been a BOOT, gave the passer the option of accepting it >(refused), and barred Alice from the rest of the auction. That is sort of >logical, but surely not correct? > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > 1) yes, it is legal; no, I don't much like it, but I do it nearly every week (I am not the manager of the club that this happens at). 2) did the director look at his lawbook? You did not make a bid, but you did pass UI. How can the passer accept a stop card? Silly ruling. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 26 23:45:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA10873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:45:15 +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 XAA10868 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:45:08 +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 JAA14035 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA01241; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906261345.JAA01241@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L75 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mr. Beye accidentaly sent this to me, and asked me to repost to BLML. >Tony, maybe you could try this next time: > > Send south away from the table. Then ask north >what his agreement is so that the e/w pair have full >disclosure. I seems that 'standard' means gambling 3N >to north, so he does have an agreement that should be >available to e/w. Additionally you may suggest to them >that, even though they are a casual partnership, they >must fill out a convention card (or you can give them >one to play until they do). > >Rick I was under the impression that this was illegal. I thought a player was only entitled to the opps agreements, not what they actually have in their hands. If NS have have no conventional understanding, how can we force N to disclose what they don't have? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 27 01:57:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA13488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:57:46 +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 BAA13482 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:57:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from p32s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.51] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10xupb-0008Ju-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Jun 1999 16:57:28 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Club Games Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 12:09:05 +0100 Message-ID: <01bebfc4$4e1be9e0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> 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 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Saturday, June 26, 1999 7:42 AM Subject: Club Games >This week's club games attended by wife Alice and me included: > >1. A two-section straight Mitchell game, 22 tables, no duplication, with >overall awards. Perfectly legal in ACBL-land, evidently, but should it be? >Is it legal everywhere? There's nothing in TFLB to say it's illegal, but I would suggest that it is not in any way desirable. It is for the SO to lay down the rules for movements that are acceptable for the issuing of master points. How are the sections added together. I hope achieved percentages are compared. I would not like to think that the computer prog. rescores the sections in combining them:-)) It is easy to run 22 tables with one set of 26 boards by numbering the tables 1Red,1Blue,2Red,2Blue. Tables with the same number share boards and the move is U2/D2.One traveller can be used if your prog allows for the pair numbering.1-11 N/SRed is 1-11./1-11N/SBlue is12-22./1-11E/WRed is23-33/1-11E/WBlue is34-44. You need to check the pair numbers as you enter the scores because of the sharing but one traveller is easier for the players. Alternatively 2 sets of boards, normal 2 section numbering, with one of each colour of the same number on each table. Shuffle, deal, play and duplicate on round one, and after that all is plain sailing. R1 takes ages and the players hate it. EBU/WBU tries to observe the 80% rule. The number of rounds should not be less than 80% of the number of tables. Hence one winner movements are not recommended when there are more than 16 tables. However. If you can get 22 tables in a club game with this sort of movement, the players obviously don't care. Makes me wonder about the necessity to be purist in a well patronised club game. > >2. Alice's RHO passed in first position and her partner put out the STOP >card, thinking he was first to bid, not noticing the pass. The TD ruled as >if it had been a BOOT, gave the passer the option of accepting it >(refused), and barred Alice from the rest of the auction. That is sort of >logical, but surely not correct? This is different. This is application of Law and yes, the TD was wrong. A STOP card is UI, it may be a lot of things, but it is not a bid/call. At least that is the way EBU /WBU TDs are taught. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 27 10:12:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:12:41 +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 KAA15003 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:12:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10y2YV-000FQ6-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:12:20 +0000 Message-ID: <0MnERCBXlWd3EwLi@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:59:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: revoke and claim In-Reply-To: <199906251644.MAA11956@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906251644.MAA11956@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Adam Beneschan >> L64C requires the TD to >> assign an adjust score only under a certain condition: "When ... the >> non-offending side is insufficiently compensated ... for the damage >> caused". So we have to see if tihs condition is satisfied before we >> can apply L12C2. If L12C2 wouldn't provide any additional >> compensation for the NO (i.e. NO gets just N tricks either way), is >> the condition in L64C met, and can we still assign a split score? > >If you read the law literally, I don't think L64C ever lets you adjust >the OS score unless you also change the NOS score. L12C3 doesn't help >either. You never get to either one unless the revoke damages the NOS >more than the penalty compensates for. IMO, if one looks at it both ways and the end result is the same then we can't apply a split score. I presume you're suggesting that I should nail the revokers if I can find an excuse? > >Should L64C be read literally? I don't much like the result. The >revokers get the benefit of "likely," when all they would deserve for >another kind of infraction is "at all probable." I would be quite happy >to see an official interpretation that the law should be read as if it >contained "or the offending side excessively rewarded," but absent >official guidance, I think we have to apply L64C as it is written. >That means there is no consideration of the OS score unless we need to >adjust the NOS score. Once we do decide to adjust the NOS score, of >course, we may adjust the OS score by more and give a split score (or >L12C3 weighted score) of the usual sort. > >Another one for Grattan's notebook, it seems. I'm pleased you spotted that one Steve. I spent two hours thinking about the original ruling, and was worried about a number of things: Was declarer making a rash claim? I decided eventually "No" Should one allow a forcing defence by the revokers after "playing on H"? I eventually decided "No". Should one look for the most likely favourable result for the claimers? Eventually I decided "Yes". Should I look for the most unfavourable result at all probable for the revokers? Eventually decided "I'm not convinced, but possibly" thanks all (another tough ruling - which I think I eventually got right. pace Andy) Qxxx - xxx - x K32 - QT9 AKx A98 A - Hearts trump, West has revoked and established it, he has not yet won a C trick. Lead N. Claim "Playing on H" 1) spade to Ace 2) KS (ruffed for the sake of argument) 3) QC pitch S, thereby getting to the two trick penalty but losing a third trick 4) TC ruff 5) HA 6) DA West has to ruff while he still has a club, or only gets one trick South can always not ruff the club. So lose 3 tricks and two trick penalty or lose 2 tricks and one trick penalty I ruled that defenders took two trump tricks only, and gave the one trick penalty. I awarded that score to both sides. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 27 10:32:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA15089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:32:53 +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 KAA15083 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 10:32:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10y2s8-000GRY-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:32:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 01:29:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Club Games In-Reply-To: <032701bebf9b$dbac70a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <032701bebf9b$dbac70a0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writes >This week's club games attended by wife Alice and me included: > >1. A two-section straight Mitchell game, 22 tables, no duplication, with >overall awards. Perfectly legal in ACBL-land, evidently, but should it be? >Is it legal everywhere? Surely legal, which law is broken? Fair? rolls on floor laughing. > >2. Alice's RHO passed in first position and her partner put out the STOP >card, thinking he was first to bid, not noticing the pass. The TD ruled as >if it had been a BOOT, gave the passer the option of accepting it >(refused), and barred Alice from the rest of the auction. That is sort of >logical, but surely not correct? > Put the STOP card away, UI to partner. No call has yet been made. john >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > > > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 27 15:54:38 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA16174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:54:38 +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 PAA16169 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 15:54:30 +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 AAA03659 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:54:22 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 019OD01Q Sun, 27 Jun 99 00:54:11 Message-ID: <9906270054.019OD01@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Sun, 27 Jun 99 00:54:11 Subject: REVOKE AND CLAIM To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is it presumptous to inquire for the purpose of adjudication of a claim that when claimer states that hearts are to be played it is spades that are played instead? Roger Pewick B>In article <199906251644.MAA11956@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner B> writes B>>> From: Adam Beneschan B>>> L64C requires the TD to B>>> assign an adjust score only under a certain condition: "When ... the B>>> non-offending side is insufficiently compensated ... for the damage B>>> caused". So we have to see if tihs condition is satisfied before we B>>> can apply L12C2. If L12C2 wouldn't provide any additional B>>> compensation for the NO (i.e. NO gets just N tricks either way), is B>>> the condition in L64C met, and can we still assign a split score? B>> B>>If you read the law literally, I don't think L64C ever lets you adjust B>>the OS score unless you also change the NOS score. L12C3 doesn't help B>>either. You never get to either one unless the revoke damages the NOS B>>more than the penalty compensates for. B>IMO, if one looks at it both ways and the end result is the same then we B>can't apply a split score. I presume you're suggesting that I should B>nail the revokers if I can find an excuse? B>> B>>Should L64C be read literally? I don't much like the result. The B>>revokers get the benefit of "likely," when all they would deserve for B>>another kind of infraction is "at all probable." I would be quite happy B>>to see an official interpretation that the law should be read as if it B>>contained "or the offending side excessively rewarded," but absent B>>official guidance, I think we have to apply L64C as it is written. B>>That means there is no consideration of the OS score unless we need to B>>adjust the NOS score. Once we do decide to adjust the NOS score, of B>>course, we may adjust the OS score by more and give a split score (or B>>L12C3 weighted score) of the usual sort. B>> B>>Another one for Grattan's notebook, it seems. B>I'm pleased you spotted that one Steve. I spent two hours thinking B>about the original ruling, and was worried about a number of things: B>Was declarer making a rash claim? I decided eventually "No" B>Should one allow a forcing defence by the revokers after "playing on H"? B>I eventually decided "No". Should one look for the most likely B>favourable result for the claimers? Eventually I decided "Yes". Should B>I look for the most unfavourable result at all probable for the B>revokers? Eventually decided "I'm not convinced, but possibly" B>thanks all (another tough ruling - which I think I eventually got right. B>pace Andy) B> Qxxx B> - B> xxx B> - B>x B>K32 B>- B>QT9 B> AKx B> A98 B> A B> - B>Hearts trump, West has revoked and established it, he has not yet won a B>C trick. Lead N. Claim "Playing on H" B>1) spade to Ace B>2) KS (ruffed for the sake of argument) B>3) QC pitch S, thereby getting to the two trick penalty but B> losing a third trick B>4) TC ruff B>5) HA B>6) DA This looks like a forcing defence to me??? B>West has to ruff while he still has a club, or only gets one trick B>South can always not ruff the club. So lose 3 tricks and two trick B>penalty or lose 2 tricks and one trick penalty B>I ruled that defenders took two trump tricks only, and gave the one B>trick penalty. I awarded that score to both sides. B>cheers john B>-- B>John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 B>451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou B>London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk B>+44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 27 17:14:13 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA16851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 17:14:13 +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 RAA16846 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 17:14:06 +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 AAA29662 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <035101bec06c$302e6360$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <001401bebfc1$0e9fce60$70728cd4@cmartin> Subject: Re: Club Games Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 00:07:31 -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 Martin wrote: > Marvin wrote:> > > >This week's club games attended by wife Alice and me included: > > > >1. A two-section straight Mitchell game, 22 tables, no duplication, with > >overall awards. Perfectly legal in ACBL-land, evidently, but should it be? > >Is it legal everywhere? > > > ######## Please provide more details. Do you mean that different sets of > boards were used in the two sections? Was there a N/S and an E/W > winner/ranking list or just a single ranking list with one overall winner? > Were any rounds arrow-switched? ########### I know it's hard to believe, but yes, two sets of boards, shuffle-deal-and-play, straight Mitchell, no arrow switches (not in ACBL-land!). Each direction in each section (four fields) gets section awards, but a single ranking of overall awards, combining the fields, is also determined. As usual, pairs ranked overall get the masterpoint award for overall rank, or for their section rank, whichever is greater, but not both. The ACBL does not seem to have any regulation that prevents such scoring, and the ACBLScor program doesn't care either. The TD had what she thought was a good reason for not duplicating the two sets of boards: Too many novices in the game, and novices often misduplicate. As to ranking pairs overall with a straight Mitchell movement when boards *are* duplicated, but no arrow switches, the NABC open pair championships and other important ACBL pair events are scored that way all the time. The two Mitchell fields compare results with totally different pairs, play totally different hands, and meet totally different opponents (except for a few handicapped pairs who remain N/S when the fields switch direction). They have played in what is essentially two different games, which should be ranked separately. I seldom meet anyone on this side of the ocean who objects to the current methods, so maybe I'm being picky. Some might say that the effect of arrow-switching on overall ranking is trivial, why bother with it? > > > > >2. Alice's RHO passed in first position and her partner put out the STOP > >card, thinking he was first to bid, not noticing the pass. The TD ruled as > >if it had been a BOOT, gave the passer the option of accepting it > >(refused), and barred Alice from the rest of the auction. That is sort of > >logical, but surely not correct?> > > ########## The Laws define a *bid* as specifying a number of odd tricks > *and* a denomination. Anything less than this is not a bid but may be UI. > The previous EBL Commentary also clearly stated that the director does not > have the power to force a player to "complete" some utterance that is not a > bid. ########## I guess the TD thought that the STOP card, with obvious intent to make some bid, was tantamount (sorry, DWS) to making the bid. Had the action been accepted, the bid would have been made, etc. Obviously wrong. I wanted the TD to see BLML comments on this, so thanks to all for giving the answer. I can see where ruling on the effects of this sort of UI could get sticky. Even this deal might require some thought by the TD. Both sides were vulnerable, and Alice had S-K H-Qxx D-KJxx C-QJxxx, which some might consider to be an opening bid (not Alice). Does the UI suggest passing or bidding with this hand, or neither? Third hand actually opened 1H, Alice's partner bid 4S (no STOP card this time!), and the dealer bid 5H. Does the UI suggest passing or doubling at this point? Since 4S is known not to be based on a hand with defensive values, the UI probably suggests passing over doubling. Doubling is an LA, so Alice must double. Down two, with 4S cold. Now the TD should change that result to down two undoubled, right? Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 28 03:11:24 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA21070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:11:24 +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 DAA21064 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 03:11:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from p23s08a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.136.36] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand5.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10yISP-0000mD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:11:05 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Club Games Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:12:04 +0100 Message-ID: <01bec0c0$2dafc3a0$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: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Date: Sunday, June 27, 1999 8:43 AM Subject: Re: Club Games >David Martin wrote: > >> Marvin wrote:> >> >> >This week's club games attended by wife Alice and me included: >> > >> >1. A two-section straight Mitchell game, 22 tables, no duplication, >with >> >overall awards. Perfectly legal in ACBL-land, evidently, but should it >be? >> >Is it legal everywhere? >> >> >> ######## Please provide more details. Do you mean that different sets >of >> boards were used in the two sections? Was there a N/S and an E/W >> winner/ranking list or just a single ranking list with one overall >winner? >> Were any rounds arrow-switched? ########### > >I know it's hard to believe, but yes, two sets of boards, >shuffle-deal-and-play, straight Mitchell, no arrow switches (not in >ACBL-land!). What is the change of direction you refer to below? Each direction in each section (four fields) gets section >awards, but a single ranking of overall awards, combining the fields, is >also determined. As usual, pairs ranked overall get the masterpoint award >for overall rank, or for their section rank, whichever is greater, but not >both. > >The ACBL does not seem to have any regulation that prevents such scoring, >and the ACBLScor program doesn't care either. But does it rescore the boards when it combines the sections as mine does. Imagine board 1 Red section is flat for 10 tricks in hearts to N/S. In the Blue section board 1 is a swingy little part score number, and you achieved a complete top by making 9 tricks in NT for N/S+150. Notice how that top becomes an average if the prog rescores the board in combining. If it just compares achieved percentages this is not so bad. >The TD had what she thought >was a good reason for not duplicating the two sets of boards: Too many >novices in the game, and novices often misduplicate. Yes. I know what she means. > >As to ranking pairs overall with a straight Mitchell movement when boards >*are* duplicated, but no arrow switches, the NABC open pair championships >and other important ACBL pair events are scored that way all the time. The >two Mitchell fields compare results with totally different pairs, play >totally different hands, and meet totally different opponents (except for >a few handicapped pairs who remain N/S when the fields switch direction). This sounds like an arrow switch. N/S handicapped players can play the E/W cards without moving their bums. >They have played in what is essentially two different games, which should >be ranked separately. I seldom meet anyone on this side of the ocean who >objects to the current methods, so maybe I'm being picky. Some might say >that the effect of arrow-switching on overall ranking is trivial, why >bother with it? I sincerely hope there is a draw for seats in this movement:) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 28 09:19:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:19:42 +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 JAA22457 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:19:34 +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 AA115805564; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:19:25 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA281095564; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:19:24 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:19:11 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Avg+ and Avg- Mime-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="BDY.RTF" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BDY.RTF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA22458 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I have not posted a game without a computer for a while and will not till many moons but some questions raised to me when preparing french learning material for directors in ACBL land. I would like to be sure that my chapter about posting Avg+ and Avg- is good (you know, a lot of points are still attached to posting boards in the ACBL exam ... and nothing about computer abilities...). I used a former game in ACBLScore and found 3 N-S pairs having an Avg on one board (top of 12 and mean 156): - pair A scored 202.8 = 65% - pair B scored 156.0 = 50% - pair C scored 109.2 = 35% I changeg the Avg to Avg+ for each pair (one by one). - pair A scored 204.6 (the system added 65%-50%=15% of a top = 1.8) - pair B scored 157.2 (10% of a top added = 1.2) - pair C scored 110.2 (10% of a top added = 1.2) When I tried Avg- - pair A scored 201.6 (minus 10% of a top = -1.2) - pair B scored 154.8 (minus 1.2) - pair C scored 108.0 (minus 1.2) Is this correct ? I am quite surprised that the system always allows 10% or 1.2 except when a player scored more than 60%. No effect on pair C (less than 40%) and no more on pair A (65%) when allowing an Avg- ? I hope somebody can check with ACBLScore to be sure I made no mistakes... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 28 09:44:09 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:44:09 +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 JAA22507 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:43:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10yOaN-000Gfu-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:43:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:41:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-Reply-To: <9906270054.019OD01@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9906270054.019OD01@bbs.hal-pc.org>, r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org writes > >Is it presumptous to inquire for the purpose of adjudication of a claim that >when claimer states that hearts are to be played it is spades that are >played instead? The claim was based on the fact that South *knew* that West had no clubs as he had failed to follow to an earlier round. It is therefore obvious to play on H and win all the returns that West *can* make. Routine claim at the YC. No argument. Unfortunately West had concealed his clubs by revoking. Damage. L64C. john > >Roger Pewick > -- 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 Jun 28 11:14:04 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:14:04 +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 LAA22694 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:13:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yPyn-00004n-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:13:04 +0000 Message-ID: <9yKedNBCRsd3Ewo$@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:39:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: revoke and claim References: <199906251523.IAA23311@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <199906251523.IAA23311@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> >> >To state it more generally: A revoke occurs, and we find that with the >> >revoke penalty, the non-offender gets N tricks. We also find that if >> >the irregularity had not occurred, the "likely" provision of 12C2 >> >gives the non-offender N tricks, and the "at all probable" provision >> >gives him N+1 tricks. It's pretty clear that the NO's score will be >> >based on N tricks, but do we assign a split score or not? My feeling >> >is that the equity mandated by L64C demands a split score, even though >> >this doesn't result in any additional compensation for the NO; but I'm >> >not sure the wording of the Laws allows this. >> >> L64C requires the TD to "assign an adjusted score". L12C2 tells the >> TD what to do if he is assigning an adjusted score. Therefore I believe >> you should follow the requirements of L12C2 which includes the >> possibility of a split. > >But only if L12C2 applies. Let me clarify: L64C requires the TD to >assign an adjust score only under a certain condition: "When ... the >non-offending side is insufficiently compensated ... for the damage >caused". So we have to see if tihs condition is satisfied before we >can apply L12C2. If L12C2 wouldn't provide any additional >compensation for the NO (i.e. NO gets just N tricks either way), is >the condition in L64C met, and can we still assign a split score? Hmm. Legally, probably not, though it seems to follow the spirit of the Law to do so. I think that's a 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 Mon Jun 28 11:14:46 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:14:46 +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 LAA22701 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yPyn-0003c4-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:13:04 +0000 Message-ID: <8ibeJRBHXsd3EwpJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:45:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L75 References: <199906251449.KAA14325@freenet5.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199906251449.KAA14325@freenet5.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >Brd 17 S K3 N E S W >neither vul H J9 3NT(1) P P P >Dlr N D AKQ97632 >Imp Pairs C 3 (1) meant as gambling, not > S AT4 S 752 alerted > H K8762 H QT43 > D J D 8 I was called to the table > C KJ65 C QT742 before West's final pass. > S QJ986 West complained that, when > H A5 he asked what 3NT was, he > D T54 was told, " no agreement". > C A98 He felt that he was entitled > to know what 3NT was, so he >called me so that I could force his opps to tell him. > I looked at the opponents' convention cards (they were both blank-- >they had agreed to play together minutes before the start of the game, >and had rather vaguely agreed to play "standard"). I asked them if >they had ever played together before (no), or if they had discussed >what 3NT was (again, no). I told the players to complete the board, >and if there was a problem, to call me back. > West objected because he still didn't know what 3NT meant. I told him >that he was entitled to know the opponents' agreements per L75. I told >him that if they had no agreement, South was not only not obliged to >"guess", he was required not to guess at an explanation. > West decided to pass. > At the end of the hand West called me back, saying that he felt damaged. >He claimed that, had he known that 3NT was gambling, he would have bid >4H. I ruled no damage (well, damage, I guess, but no redress). He was not >happy. Shame. > Here is the fun part: West is a director and club owner in the area. >I often work with/for him. He also monitors BLML off & on, depending >if I think something is particularly interesting. He runs games >5-6 times a week, and so doesn't have much time for full participation. >He asked me to put this up to find out if my ruling was right or wrong. > Was it? Definitely correct. > Two further points: > West told me (lectured after the game?) that if a player has no >agreement, he is "required" to treat it as "standard"; I disagree. >I can find nothing in the Laws which require any such thing: is there? Of course not. West is just making Laws up. You have no right to know what oppos are up to when they have no agreement. > South told me the reason he passed with his 11 HCP was because he >thought his partner would more likely go through 2C to show a strong >balanced hand than do so with 3NT (his assessment of his pard's >knowledge base, not an agreement: North is relatively young, plays >in an advanced crowd, and is not a rubber bridge player; I do not think >this meets the requirement of partnership experience, but is more general >knowledge and experience). South can guess what he likes. They have no agreement, and that ends the matter. > Finaly, and here I am pretty sure I was in error, I did not take >East or West away from the table before the auction was over to ask >what, if any, action they would have taken if 3NT was ruled misinformation. >I think West was correct when he told me later that I should have done >this. I also have no reason to think West would not bid 4H over 3NT. What on earth do you want to know what would happen if you rule MI when there wasn't any? >ps this was from a swiss pair game I ran (well tried to run). > ten tables, 5x5 board rounds. Got in twenty boards; the last > 3 rounds ran on time (aprox. 40min each); the first took > nearly 1H 10min :-( > My fault: the travellers got all screwed up (I told the > players to score by table number, half did, most others scored > by pair number, one scored by board number--next time, I'll > use pickups!); I had 3 sets of duped boards: the 4 table group > had a "hoarder" who kept an extra so as to have a board to play, > while another table sat for ten minutes waiting for the next > board in sequence (!) Did you tell them to pass boards on? Did the table wait for ten minutes without telling you? > I thought I had worked out all the details, but failed to > take into account the players...mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa -- 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 Jun 28 11:13:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:13:42 +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 LAA22687 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:13:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yPyo-000GGB-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:13:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 02:00:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Club Games References: <001401bebfc1$0e9fce60$70728cd4@cmartin> <035101bec06c$302e6360$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <035101bec06c$302e6360$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >I know it's hard to believe, but yes, two sets of boards, >shuffle-deal-and-play, straight Mitchell, no arrow switches (not in >ACBL-land!). Each direction in each section (four fields) gets section >awards, but a single ranking of overall awards, combining the fields, is >also determined. As usual, pairs ranked overall get the masterpoint award >for overall rank, or for their section rank, whichever is greater, but not >both. > >The ACBL does not seem to have any regulation that prevents such scoring, >and the ACBLScor program doesn't care either. The TD had what she thought >was a good reason for not duplicating the two sets of boards: Too many >novices in the game, and novices often misduplicate. Oh, well, that solves the problem of getting a decent number of masterpoints issued in ACBL games: ring up thirty other clubs, and agree to call their weekly duplicates all part of one event: put the scores together, and hey presto, zillions of master-points! Its bridge, captain, but not as we know it [with apologies to Star Trek]. [s] >I guess the TD thought that the STOP card, with obvious intent to make >some bid, was tantamount (sorry, DWS) to making the bid. Had the action >been accepted, the bid would have been made, etc. Obviously wrong. I >wanted the TD to see BLML comments on this, so thanks to all for giving >the answer. It is actually a good example of what is wrong with "tantamount": making a bid is defined in the Laws, and assuming something else is tantamount to it leads to wrong rulings. -- 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 Jun 28 11:36:00 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:36:00 +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 LAA22794 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:35:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yPyn-000GGA-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:13:05 +0000 Message-ID: <2S0c1WB4csd3EwKP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:52:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L75 References: <199906261345.JAA01241@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199906261345.JAA01241@freenet3.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >Mr. Beye accidentaly sent this to me, and asked me to repost >to BLML. >>Tony, maybe you could try this next time: >> >> Send south away from the table. Then ask north >>what his agreement is so that the e/w pair have full >>disclosure. I seems that 'standard' means gambling 3N >>to north, so he does have an agreement that should be >>available to e/w. Additionally you may suggest to them >>that, even though they are a casual partnership, they >>must fill out a convention card (or you can give them >>one to play until they do). This is not correct. If North/South have no agreement then the opponents have no right to know what the call means. You may send someone away from the table if you wish to do so, but you **must** tell the player that if he and his partner have *no* agreement then there is no reason why he should tell the oppos what is in his hand. This procedure is *solely* for the player to tell the oppos when they have an agreement and his partner has forgotten. A Director must *not* use the procedure to give the oppos information to which they are not entitled. If there is no particular agreement as to what Standard means then why on earth should they tell the oppos? They have agreed "Standard": tell the oppos that and no more. >I was under the impression that this was illegal. >I thought a player was only entitled to the opps agreements, >not what they actually have in their hands. If NS have >have no conventional understanding, how can we force >N to disclose what they don't have? We cannot: to do so is against the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm ~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 28 11:36:08 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:36:08 +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 LAA22799 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:35:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yPyt-000GG9-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 01:13:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 02:09:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Handicaps References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > However, the problem that led to my initial post is slightly more >complicated: the disabled players manage to upset nearly all their >opponents! While several people do their best for them the feeling is >that they take advantage, and they are not nice people. They have >seriously upset *several* opponents. Oh well, it had to happen. I knew someone would take me seriously one day and it would come back to bite me. I put a lot of situations on this list. In some cases I report the complete facts, but in the vast majority I alter things, add things, do not mention things, make things up, and so on. Why? Because we are trying to discuss the Laws and Regulations of bridge and their application. Often, it is much easier to make a point by amending an actual situation. In the case of the players with handicaps, there was an original situation that led to this: true. However, I have not described it accurately nor have I made any real attempt to do so. I have merely tried to find information out. Posting that a pair may have done something or may not [I do not know] would be very interesting no doubt, but hardly helpful to discover answers to particular situations. Thankyou to whoever has reported my remarks back. When I stated that a certain pair had done something I did not mean that any specific pair had done anything in any specific situation. I hope that in future my readers will remember that my first aim is to promote helpful discussion on bridge rules: I am not a news broadcasting service. -- 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 Jun 28 11:55:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA22889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:55:16 +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 LAA22883 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:55:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem99.tweety.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.227] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-02.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10yQdJ-0005iz-00; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 02:54:54 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , , Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 02:47:01 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. -ooOoo- > From: Schoderb@aol.com > To: mdfarebr@hotmail.com; bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Advice from on high. > Date: 16 June 1999 17:57 > > In a message dated 6/16/99 12:44:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mdfarebr@hotmail.com writes: > > > Ok, so if this is a convention, the ACBL can regulate it. *If* it is a > > convention. > Kojak here. And that is exactly what I meant. The ACBL considers a call > made to indicate that my length and strength are probably somewhere else as a > convention, I believe. Having severed financial ties to the ACBL some time > ago I may not have that exactly correct, but the Erics of BLML can find it > somewhere written out, I'm sure. > > > OK........I don"t believe that the spirit of the definition is to regulate > that strongly, but it is within the letter of the Law. > > I do think that it was in intent of the ACBL to regualte that strongly. +++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 28 12:56:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA23083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:56:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA23078 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:56:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA30075 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:56:02 -0800 Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 18:56:02 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This thread seems like as good an opprtunity as any to present a dilemma with which my club is faced on a semi-regular basis. We have two longtime members with poor eyesight. Everyone in the club has been most accommodating as far as not using bid-boxes at that table, announcing plays, reading off what's in dummy as it is displayed, and so forth. The problem is, when these two play together, nothing on the face of this earth can accelerate them to a pace faster than about 9 minutes a board on average. The club here tends to be fairly laid-back anyway (we rarely finish in under 3 1/2 hours even when these two don't play) but there is inevitably trouble whenever they play with a slower-than-usual game. I assign late plays when I can, of course, but we still have to wait an extra five minutes after half the rounds. Where does one draw the dividing line between making reasonable accommodation for a handicap, and keeping one's game moving smoothly? One solution we have talked about is requiring them to play fewer boards (three instead of four per round in a 4-table game for instance) - but it is not clear whether this is a fair or legal thing to do, nor is it clear whether they should get Avg-, Avg, or whether their final score on the boards they do play should just be factored up. (the opponents would get Avg+, obviously.) Have any of you had to deal with this situation in your own clubs? Would any of the ACBL official types care of offer us some guidance? --- I also find that players calling out their own cards tend to name the high spots and honours but just say "small club" or whatever when playing a low spot sometimes. This creates some obvious UI problems, which, fortunately, have not yet come to the fore in my club, mostly thanks to the fact that, frankly, the pair involved did not ever seem to pay attention to the difference betwen fours and deuces when they could still see either. GRB From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 28 13:37:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA23234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:37:22 +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 NAA23229 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:37:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegc9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.65.137]) by smtp1.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA27049 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:36:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990627233455.007776e4@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:34:55 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:47 AM 6/28/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT >opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the >conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ I am sorry to have to say so, but that is mere sophistry. This regulation has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with the regulation of conventions per se. Its sole, undeniable, and transparent intent is to strongly discourage the use of 10-12 notrumps. Now that maybe a Good and Noble Thing To Do (although I doubt it), and whether or not we think it desirable, we may well decide that opening notrump ranges are an appropriate subject for SO regulation. What is disheartening, though, is the intellectual dishonesty attendant to this position. I understand why the WBFLC might be reluctant to try and enforce its Laws within regional jurisdictions. Ultimately its authority (outside of WBF-sponsored competitions) relies entirely on the cooperation of the SO's. But if you really believe that SO's should have the right to regulate no-trump ranges, or ban psyching of conventional bids, then why not give them that authority within the Laws, rather than relying on this silly fiction that they are just "regulating conventions"? Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 28 16:43:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA23733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:43:39 +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 QAA23728 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:43:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yV8E-0001rR-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 06:43:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 02:29:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Avg+ and Avg- References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: >I have not posted a game without a computer for a while and will not >till many moons but some questions raised to me when preparing >french learning material for directors in ACBL land. I would like to be >sure that my chapter about posting Avg+ and Avg- is good (you know, >a lot of points are still attached to posting boards in the ACBL exam >... and nothing about computer abilities...). > >I used a former game in ACBLScore and found 3 N-S pairs having >an Avg on one board (top of 12 and mean 156): > - pair A scored 202.8 = 65% > - pair B scored 156.0 = 50% > - pair C scored 109.2 = 35% > >I changeg the Avg to Avg+ for each pair (one by one). > - pair A scored 204.6 (the system added 65%-50%=15% of a top = 1.8) > - pair B scored 157.2 (10% of a top added = 1.2) > - pair C scored 110.2 (10% of a top added = 1.2) > >When I tried Avg- > - pair A scored 201.6 (minus 10% of a top = -1.2) > - pair B scored 154.8 (minus 1.2) *************************************** > - pair C scored 108.0 (minus 1.2) This should be minus 15% of a top = 1.8 See http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm #4. This is the interpretation placed by the WBFLC on the change in L12C1 in 1997. >Is this correct ? I am quite surprised that the system always allows >10% or 1.2 except when a player scored more than 60%. >No effect on pair C (less than 40%) and no more on pair A (65%) >when allowing an Avg- ? This would have been correct before 1997. -- 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 Jun 28 22:04:54 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:04:54 +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 WAA24537 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:04:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA09049 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:17:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990628080450.006f6c70@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:04:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Club Games In-Reply-To: References: <035101bec06c$302e6360$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001401bebfc1$0e9fce60$70728cd4@cmartin> <035101bec06c$302e6360$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:00 AM 6/28/99 +0100, David wrote: > Oh, well, that solves the problem of getting a decent number of >masterpoints issued in ACBL games: ring up thirty other clubs, and agree >to call their weekly duplicates all part of one event: put the scores >together, and hey presto, zillions of master-points! I would guess that David wrote this with his tongue in his cheek, and that he'd probably be surprised to know that this happens routinely in the ACBL. It's called a "tournament in clubs", and requires a special sanction from the League. 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 Jun 28 22:16:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:16:17 +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 WAA24606 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:16:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA09456 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:29:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990628081616.0069fb40@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:16:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:47 AM 6/28/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT >opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the >conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ I'll buy that so far, but the ACBL goes much further (at least -- the new usual caveat -- if one believes what has been written in the ACBL Bulletin). Conventions may be used with a 10-12 natural NT opener unless and until such time as a member of the partnership chooses to open the 10-12 NT with a promoted 9-count, at which point conventions may no longer be used -- ever, for the life of the partnership. Does this still qualify as regulating the conditions for the use of the conventions, or is this regulating the opening bid? If the former, is it consistent with the intent of the law, or have the ACBL merely found an unintended loophole in the the way the law was written? 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 Jun 28 22:26:22 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA24674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:26:22 +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 WAA24669 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 22:26:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA09885 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990628082622.006fa72c@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:26:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Handicaps In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:56 PM 6/27/99 -0800, Gordon wrote: >Where does one draw the dividing line between making reasonable >accommodation for a handicap, and keeping one's game moving smoothly? >One solution we have talked about is requiring them to play fewer boards >(three instead of four per round in a 4-table game for instance) - but it >is not clear whether this is a fair or legal thing to do, nor is it clear >whether they should get Avg-, Avg, or whether their final score on the >boards they do play should just be factored up. (the opponents would get >Avg+, obviously.) Have any of you had to deal with this situation in your >own clubs? Would any of the ACBL official types care of offer us some >guidance? I can find nothing that would make it illegal. We can argue about whether it's "fair", but sometimes some degree of fairness must be sacrificed to the players' overall enjoyment of the game. But if you *require* them to play fewer boards (as opposed to removing boards from their table only if and when they get behind), you cannot use L12C1 to assign an artificial score for the board, as the board was never scheduled to be played. The scores of both pairs must be factored, or, equivalently, percentages computed based on the number of boards actually played by each pair with rankings determined by percentage. 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 Jun 28 23:24:37 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA24776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 23:24:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA24771 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 23:24:19 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA20518; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:23:59 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA03417; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:23:42 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:23:41 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA01332; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:23:39 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:23:39 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199906281323.OAA01332@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > > At 02:47 AM 6/28/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > >+++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT > >opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the > >conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > I'll buy that so far, but the ACBL goes much further (at least -- the new > usual caveat -- if one believes what has been written in the ACBL > Bulletin). Conventions may be used with a 10-12 natural NT opener unless > and until such time as a member of the partnership chooses to open the > 10-12 NT with a promoted 9-count, at which point conventions may no longer > be used -- ever, for the life of the partnership. > While I have much sympathy with Eric's position, I don't think there is an easy solution to implementing the ACBL's desires. HCP is not a very accurate device for evaluation, for regulation, or for disclosure. However it has an overwhelming advantage: it is (almost) universally understood and consistently calculated. For evaluation, the inaccuracies in HCP can be overcome by partnership understanding. For regulation and disclosure, adjustments to HCP (to overcome inaccuracies) can lead to problems. The ACBL could have a regulation such as: You can not play conventional responses and rebids after an opening 1NT which shows, by partnership agreement, less than 11HCP. It is recognised that some 10HCP hands should be promoted as being worth 11HCP. Therefore partnerships which have agreed a range for an opening 1NT from 11HCP, may open 1NT on some 10HCP hands and still use conventional responses and rebids. It is not permitted to promote hands of less than 10HCP to being worth an 11HCP 1NT opener. This regulation would strike me as a reasonable allowance for judgement in dealing with promotion with respect to HCP; but would practically allow 10-12 1NT opener, as people would argue that any given 10HCP was as good as some really bad 11HCP hand. The regulation has much the same effect as the existing regulation (as I understand it) but it is harder to understand and the "reasonable allowance for judgement in dealing with promotion with respect to HCP" serves no real purpose (except to show they understand such things). Robin -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 00:26:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA27223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:26:48 +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 AAA27218 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:26:35 +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 KAA21563 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA16997; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906281426.KAA16997@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Club Games Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Marvin L. French wrote: > >>I know it's hard to believe, but yes, two sets of boards, >>shuffle-deal-and-play, straight Mitchell, no arrow switches (not in >>ACBL-land!). Each direction in each section (four fields) gets section >>awards, but a single ranking of overall awards, combining the fields, is >>also determined. As usual, pairs ranked overall get the masterpoint award >>for overall rank, or for their section rank, whichever is greater, but not >>both. >> >>The ACBL does not seem to have any regulation that prevents such scoring, >>and the ACBLScor program doesn't care either. The TD had what she thought >>was a good reason for not duplicating the two sets of boards: Too many >>novices in the game, and novices often misduplicate. > > Oh, well, that solves the problem of getting a decent number of >masterpoints issued in ACBL games: ring up thirty other clubs, and agree >to call their weekly duplicates all part of one event: put the scores >together, and hey presto, zillions of master-points! > > Its bridge, captain, but not as we know it [with apologies to Star >Trek]. > I don't think there would be more mps, I think there would be less. When you have an overall like this, the top club award is the number of tables*.10mp, with a maximum of 1.5mps. Yes, the result is not very accurate, but hardly a bonanza. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 01:34:51 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:34:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f300.hotmail.com [207.82.251.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA27529 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:34:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 59736 invoked by uid 0); 28 Jun 1999 15:34:05 -0000 Message-ID: <19990628153405.59735.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 205.211.164.226 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:34:04 PDT X-Originating-IP: [205.211.164.226] From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 08:34:04 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Grattan >--------------------------------------------------------- >"Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is >to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. > Of course. And a lovely comfort it is. :-) Just a small clarification. When I wrote this (and when Kojak replied), we were discussing whether canape openers could be considered conventions. The conversation had not yet turned to that other bugaboo. >>From: Schoderb@aol.com >> >>In a message dated 6/16/99 12:44:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >>mdfarebr@hotmail.com writes: >> >>>Ok, so if this is a convention, the ACBL can regulate it. *If* it >>>is >>>a convention. > >>Kojak here. And that is exactly what I meant. The ACBL considers >>a >>call made to indicate that my length and strength are probably >>somewhere >>else as a convention, I believe. >> >>>OK........I don't believe that the spirit of the definition is to >>>regulate that strongly, but it is within the letter of the Law. >> >>I do think that it was in intent of the ACBL to regulate that >>strongly. > >+++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT >opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the >conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ Michael. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 01:35:31 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA27551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:35:31 +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 BAA27546 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:35:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA23943 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990628113530.006f60bc@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:35:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-Reply-To: <199906281323.OAA01332@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:23 PM 6/28/99 +0100, Robin wrote: >While I have much sympathy with Eric's position, I don't think there is >an easy solution to implementing the ACBL's desires. Of course there's an easy solution. All we have to do is rewrite L40 to state, in its entirety, "A player's right to make any call or play may be regulated by the Sponsoring Organization in whatever manner it deems appropriate." We could then argue at length about whether what would be played in the ACBL would still be bridge as we know it, but I suspect the ACBL BoD would be so delighted with their new authority that -- if you'll pardon the crudity -- they would have to change their undergarments. 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 Jun 29 02:19:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:19:23 +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 CAA27794 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:19:17 +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 JAA04747 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03b301bec181$486875e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:13:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT > opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the > conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ This can be turned around: You may open 10-12 notrumps provided you don't use a convention afterwards. Sure feels like a regulation of the opener! Have lost the thread of this thread, but 10-12 plus conventions is okay hereabouts. It's less than 9 or greater spread than 5 that is subject to the no-convention regulation. The ACBL says that it is okay for LMs not to pay the annual LM fee, but those who don't must pay more to enter sectional or higher-rated events. Life is full of choices, but you don't get to make any (Charlie Brown). Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 02:25:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:25:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27823 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:24:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA14562 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:24:07 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-15.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.79) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014514; Mon Jun 28 11:23:28 1999 Message-ID: <004b01bec182$c41b8640$4f9c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: Subject: Re: Club Games Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:24:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 (DWS wrote)> > Oh, well, that solves the problem of getting a decent number of >masterpoints issued in ACBL games: ring up thirty other clubs, and agree >to call their weekly duplicates all part of one event: put the scores >together, and hey presto, zillions of master-points! Congratulations David. You have just reinvented the unit game. :-) Craig Senior From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 02:44:25 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:44:25 +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 CAA27862 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:44:18 +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 JAA08497; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:43:37 -0700 Message-Id: <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Jun 1999 00:41:09 PDT." Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:43:37 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > >Is it presumptous to inquire for the purpose of adjudication of a claim that > >when claimer states that hearts are to be played it is spades that are > >played instead? > > The claim was based on the fact that South *knew* that West had no clubs > as he had failed to follow to an earlier round. It is therefore obvious > to play on H and win all the returns that West *can* make. Routine claim > at the YC. No argument. Unfortunately West had concealed his clubs by > revoking. Damage. L64C. But if you use L64C, you can't award an assigned score and THEN award a revoke penalty, can you? It seems that that's what you did. You determined that declarer stated a line of play based on bad information due to West's irregularity; you then determined that declarer would have adopted a different line had he had correct information, and you assigned a score based on that different line. All that is fine. But L70 doesn't let you alter the claimer's stated line of play, so it seems to me that L64C is the only way to make a ruling by assuming declarer adopts a different line of play. But if you apply L64C and assign a score, I don't think you can then award a revoke penalty on top of that. L64C takes effect only *after* you award a revoke penalty and then decide that this penalty is insufficient compensation. So I don't see a legitimate way to give East-West fewer than 2 of the last 7 tricks. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 02:54:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:54:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27899 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:54:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from p65s04a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.164.102] helo=pacific) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10yefu-00005i-00; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:54:30 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01bec186$6eea9b80$66a493c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:50:27 +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: 28 June 1999 13:43 Subject: Re: Advice from on high. >At 02:47 AM 6/28/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >>+++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT >>opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the >>conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > >I'll buy that so far, but the ACBL goes much further ------------------\x/--\x/------------------ >chooses to open the >10-12 NT with a promoted 9-count, at which point conventions may no longer >be used -- ever, for the life of the partnership. > >Does this still qualify as regulating the conditions for the use of the >conventions, or is this regulating the opening bid? If the former, is it >consistent with the intent of the law, or have the ACBL merely found an >unintended loophole in the the way the law was written? > ++++ I think it is consistent, even if a surprising decision. As to the intent of the law I think it was to give regulating authorities absolute power to control the use of conventions. Kaplan argued against extending this to control of natural methods, but it was I who showed him how this desire could be overcome and the regulation was introduced sometime about 1987 in GB. I make no apology for this since I argued that NBOs had 'come of age' and should be given power to deal with the particular problems within their own sphere. Kaplan took the view that some 'inferior' (my word - I will not quote his) NBOs were not capable of producing a policy balanced between the objects of the law and the difficulties they perceived within their own memberships. He made it sound as though these were backward regimes, but used one major European NBO as his example. I acknowledge that NBOs have strayed too far apart, hence M. Damiani's aim to establish an international jurisprudence in bridge law. As to who does what I make no comment now in anticipation of forthcoming discussions, other than to say I would have good hopes that the present WBF President will be able to find a fulcrum on which we can all move. ~ Grattan ~ ++++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 02:56:30 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA27920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:56:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA27915 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 02:56:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA19813; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 11:55:38 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa3-15.ix.netcom.com(207.92.156.79) by dfw-ix16.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma019651; Mon Jun 28 11:54:38 1999 Message-ID: <006401bec187$1f001f40$4f9c5ccf@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:55:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 While it stretches 40D to the breaking point, this ACBL approach may be legal. It is indeed intellectually dishonest and a transparent attempt to sidestep 40A. Actually that all matters less than that once again a marketing decision has been allowed to run roughshod over what is good for the game. This is akin to the designated hitter, artificial turf and, yes, rampant masterpoint inflation. It might even be vaguely acceptable if it were working. Has anyone looked at membership figures or the average age of the membership? Overregulation of innovative methods is a short sighted marketing ploy that drives away younger players. Let bad bidding be its own regulator, and hold back the restrictions to barring HUMs at lower levels and we could see the sort of participation in ACBLland that there is in ROW. It would be money well spent for the ACBL BoD and the Laws Committee to assemble in Amsterdam (or name your city where people are playing in droves). We are approaching the time when the only folks we are protecting with these restrictions will be octogenarians. We "Young Turks" of two decades ago are eligible to play in (ugh) seniors events and getting ready to collect our social security...and most of us were weaned from straight Goren ages ago and greeted SAYC with all the excitement of BridgeAmerica. Sorry to drift a bit off topic...but it is past time that we stopped considering this tendency to overregulate for what it is. It is not a matter of Law...the Laws speak clearly enough in this area, and they speak toward giving the SO's considerable autonomy within a broad framework that embraces freedom of system where it does not take unfair advantage or unduly impair the rights of others to enjoy their systems. This is fundamentally a marketing-driven problem. We need to speak to it for what it is if we hope to change it. It is somewhat like the inferior scoring of the 22 table club game Marv wrote about: intended to make Susie Kumquat happy. Unlike that bursting-at-the-seams club game though, the overregulation of conventions and bidding is not bringing in players in droves...it is driving them away from bridge. Will the Spingold become a three session event? Will life master pairs be played as a Howell? Keep it up guys! Craig Senior Grattan wrote: >>+++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT >>opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the >>conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > (Mike Dennis then wrote)>I am sorry to have to say so, but that is mere sophistry. This regulation >has _nothing whatsoever_ to do with the regulation of conventions per se. >Its sole, undeniable, and transparent intent is to strongly discourage the >use of 10-12 notrumps. Now that maybe a Good and Noble Thing To Do >(although I doubt it), and whether or not we think it desirable, we may >well decide that opening notrump ranges are an appropriate subject for SO >regulation. > >What is disheartening, though, is the intellectual dishonesty attendant to >this position. I understand why the WBFLC might be reluctant to try and >enforce its Laws within regional jurisdictions. Ultimately its authority >(outside of WBF-sponsored competitions) relies entirely on the cooperation >of the SO's. But if you really believe that SO's should have the right to >regulate no-trump ranges, or ban psyching of conventional bids, then why >not give them that authority within the Laws, rather than relying on this >silly fiction that they are just "regulating conventions"? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 03:09:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 03:09:17 +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 DAA27983 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 03:09:04 +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 NAA00308 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:08:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA13796 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:08:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:08:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906281708.NAA13796@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Club Games X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > At 02:00 AM 6/28/99 +0100, David wrote: > > Oh, well, that solves the problem of getting a decent number of > >masterpoints issued in ACBL games: ring up thirty other clubs, and agree > >to call their weekly duplicates all part of one event: put the scores > >together, and hey presto, zillions of master-points! > From: Eric Landau > I would guess that David wrote this with his tongue in his cheek, and that > he'd probably be surprised to know that this happens routinely in the ACBL. > It's called a "tournament in clubs", and requires a special sanction from > the League. I think it's "Sectional Tournament at Clubs" (STaC), but I thought the regulations required boards to be duplicated at all sites. It is still a fine way to distribute lots of master points somewhat at random. Failing to duplicate the boards increases the randomness quite a lot, of course. In spite of David's obvious facetious intent, is there anything in ACBL regulations that would prevent multi-site club games being scored as a single event? Of course the awards would be at club level, not sectional level, but still, the overall places would award lots of master points. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 03:09:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 03:09:40 +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 DAA27998 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 03:09:33 +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 KAA10375 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <03e401bec188$4de4b5e0$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.19990628081616.0069fb40@pop.cais.com> Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 10:00:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:47 AM 6/28/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > > >+++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT > >opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the > >conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > I'll buy that so far, but the ACBL goes much further (at least -- the new > usual caveat -- if one believes what has been written in the ACBL > Bulletin). Conventions may be used with a 10-12 natural NT opener unless > and until such time as a member of the partnership chooses to open the > 10-12 NT with a promoted 9-count, at which point conventions may no longer > be used -- ever, for the life of the partnership. > > Does this still qualify as regulating the conditions for the use of the > conventions, or is this regulating the opening bid? If the former, is it > consistent with the intent of the law, or have the ACBL merely found an > unintended loophole in the the way the law was written? > > Surely a loophole that should be closed. As with the definition of convention, which (for the ACBL's benefit) states clearly that HCP range is not a valid criterion for saying that a bid is a convention, the Laws should state that control of a convention must not be based on the HCP range of a preceding non-conventional call. Another desirable change in this direction: An SO may not impose a hand evaluation method (e.g., 4-3-2-1) on players. Note that the Laws themselves use such language as "a king below average strength," not "7 HCP." Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 03:32:58 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA28120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 03:32:58 +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 DAA28115 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 03:32:47 +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 NAA01158 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA13822 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:32:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 13:32:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <199906281732.NAA13822@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: revoke and claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I presume you're suggesting that I should > nail the revokers if I can find an excuse? I'd look for any excuse to make sure they don't benefit from the revoke, but as long as there is no benefit, I wouldn't go out of my way to punish them. > I'm pleased you spotted that one Steve. It was Adam Beneschan who spotted it. I was just amplifying a bit on his comments. Overall, I agree with him about what the laws require. You rule on the claim in the usual way, deciding in the process whether the revoke penalty is one trick or two. Then you go back and look at L64C, "cancelling" the revoke and "replaying" the hand to make sure the NOS isn't damaged. The problem comes, of course, when the revoke has "caused" a "bad" claim. Now the revoke will not usually be penalized (in the sense of reducing the OS score; damage will still be redressed), even though in some cases it may be more harmful than an "ordinary" revoke that is penalized. (NOS may have been deprived of a chance at a penalty.) I suppose we could rule under L12A1 -- and I'm suggesting this _only_ where the revoke is the _direct_ cause of the bad claim -- but I know David won't like this idea, and I'm not fond of it myself. What I really think is that the whole interaction of revokes, claims, and concessions could do with some serious attention from the WBFLC. But until 2007, we just have to muddle along with what we have. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 05:11:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 05:11:07 +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 FAA28549 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 05:11:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 10ygnX-00013Y-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 19:10:32 +0000 Message-ID: <4hPfknA6h8d3EwpJ@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 20:09:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-Reply-To: <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03a Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes snip > But if >you apply L64C and assign a score, I don't think you can then award a >revoke penalty on top of that. L64C takes effect only *after* you >award a revoke penalty and then decide that this penalty is >insufficient compensation. > >So I don't see a legitimate way to give East-West fewer than 2 of the >last 7 tricks. aaaaaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh I agree john > > -- Adam -- John (MadDog) Probst| /|_ FFB 3268572|+ phone & fax :181 980 4947 451 Mile End Road | / @\__.ACBL7795556|icq 10810798, OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | /\ __)EBU L018829|e-m john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)181 983 5818 |/\:\ /-- |Site www.probst.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 05:57:03 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 05:57:03 +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 FAA28684 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 05:56:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:56:19 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990628215636.007a3b50@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, 28 Jun 1999 21:56:36 +0200 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:43 28.06.99 PDT, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >John Probst wrote: > >> >Is it presumptous to inquire for the purpose of adjudication of a claim that >> >when claimer states that hearts are to be played it is spades that are >> >played instead? >> >> The claim was based on the fact that South *knew* that West had no clubs >> as he had failed to follow to an earlier round. It is therefore obvious >> to play on H and win all the returns that West *can* make. Routine claim >> at the YC. No argument. Unfortunately West had concealed his clubs by >> revoking. Damage. L64C. > >But if you use L64C, you can't award an assigned score and THEN award >a revoke penalty, can you? It seems that that's what you did. You >determined that declarer stated a line of play based on bad >information due to West's irregularity; you then determined that >declarer would have adopted a different line had he had correct >information, and you assigned a score based on that different line. >All that is fine. But L70 doesn't let you alter the claimer's stated >line of play, so it seems to me that L64C is the only way to make a >ruling by assuming declarer adopts a different line of play. But if >you apply L64C and assign a score, I don't think you can then award a >revoke penalty on top of that. L64C takes effect only *after* you >award a revoke penalty and then decide that this penalty is >insufficient compensation. > >So I don't see a legitimate way to give East-West fewer than 2 of the >last 7 tricks. > I agree fully. A sharp analysis of the wording of the laws. So we have another case where claiming can cost tricks.... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 06:50:36 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:50:36 +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 GAA28847 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:50:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from p20s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.33] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yiM0-0003zW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:50:13 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:56:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01bec1a8$ba1bc080$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: Gordon Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Monday, June 28, 1999 4:30 AM Subject: Re: Handicaps > >This thread seems like as good an opprtunity as any to present a dilemma >with which my club is faced on a semi-regular basis. > >We have two longtime members with poor eyesight. Everyone in the club has >been most accommodating as far as not using bid-boxes at that table, >announcing plays, reading off what's in dummy as it is displayed, and so >forth. > >The problem is, when these two play together, nothing on the face of this >earth can accelerate them to a pace faster than about 9 minutes a board >on average. The club here tends to be fairly laid-back anyway (we rarely >finish in under 3 1/2 hours even when these two don't play) but there is >inevitably trouble whenever they play with a slower-than-usual game. I >assign late plays when I can, of course, but we still have to wait an >extra five minutes after half the rounds. > >Where does one draw the dividing line between making reasonable >accommodation for a handicap, and keeping one's game moving smoothly? >One solution we have talked about is requiring them to play fewer boards >(three instead of four per round in a 4-table game for instance) - but it >is not clear whether this is a fair or legal thing to do, nor is it clear >whether they should get Avg-, Avg, or whether their final score on the >boards they do play should just be factored up. (the opponents would get >Avg+, obviously.) Have any of you had to deal with this situation in your >own clubs? Would any of the ACBL official types care of offer us some >guidance? I'm not an ACBL official type:-( but this is what I would do, with the approval of the club committee or whatever. I would explain the problem to the the handicapped players and explain that while there is a rule about 7 mins a board I do not want them to be inconvenienced by it. Say "Because slow play is a general problem I am going to announce that 5 mins before the end of the round I am going to announce "no more boards to be started" Other players will get a score proportionate to blame. Probably A-A- unless I know that one paticular pair is at fault. However at _your_ table I will award A+A unless you are slower than usual for a reason in which case it will be A+A-" Ask them if they think it's fair? If they can play faster, then I think they will. If they cannot then you have made allowance for their handicap in a way that benefits the rest of the field as far as time of play is concerned. If they are visually handicapped then they may not realise that slow play is only a problem at their table. >I also find that players calling out their own cards tend to name the high >spots and honours but just say "small club" or whatever when playing a low >spot sometimes. This creates some obvious UI problems, which, fortunately, >have not yet come to the fore in my club, mostly thanks to the fact that, >frankly, the pair involved did not ever seem to pay attention to the >difference betwen fours and deuces when they could still see either. This can cause UI between partners as well as giving the opps help. Make a rule that " In order to help Mr & Mrs Handicapped called cards must be named accurately" From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 06:50:32 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:50:32 +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 GAA28846 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:50:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from p20s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.33] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand4.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10yiLy-0003zW-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:50:11 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Club Games Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:41:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01bec1a6$a656f080$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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Date: Monday, June 28, 1999 1:36 PM Subject: Re: Club Games >At 02:00 AM 6/28/99 +0100, David wrote: > >> Oh, well, that solves the problem of getting a decent number of >>masterpoints issued in ACBL games: ring up thirty other clubs, and agree >>to call their weekly duplicates all part of one event: put the scores >>together, and hey presto, zillions of master-points! No. Smaller fields give proportionately more master points because there is a rounding up of the last place if the total number of contestants is not divisible by three, or if the last place is tied. In principle the number of points issued should be the same except that fewer people share them in a huge field. > >I would guess that David wrote this with his tongue in his cheek, and that >he'd probably be surprised to know that this happens routinely in the ACBL. > It's called a "tournament in clubs", and requires a special sanction from >the League. As per Law78D no doubt. Law78A describes how the results achieved by contestants who have played the _same board _are compared. I suspect we will have to wait for Herman to explain to us how comparisons, when players have played different boards, are valid for matchpointing. I can see that when several fields are combined, and merely sorted in order of percentage greatness, a result indicating performance can be obtained, but I cannot for the life of me see how if the sections are rescored one against the others, that Law78A is being applied. Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 06:55:46 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA28915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:55:46 +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 GAA28910 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id PAA22789 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:56:38 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906282056.PAA22789@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: revoke and claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:56:38 -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 > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > I presume you're suggesting that I should > > nail the revokers if I can find an excuse? > > I'd look for any excuse to make sure they don't benefit from the > revoke, but as long as there is no benefit, I wouldn't go out of > my way to punish them. Hear, hear. > > I'm pleased you spotted that one Steve. > > It was Adam Beneschan who spotted it. I was just amplifying a bit on > his comments. Overall, I agree with him about what the laws require. > You rule on the claim in the usual way, deciding in the process whether > the revoke penalty is one trick or two. Then you go back and look at > L64C, "cancelling" the revoke and "replaying" the hand to make sure the > NOS isn't damaged. The problem comes, of course, when the revoke has > "caused" a "bad" claim. Now the revoke will not usually be penalized > (in the sense of reducing the OS score; damage will still be > redressed), even though in some cases it may be more harmful than an > "ordinary" revoke that is penalized. (NOS may have been deprived of > a chance at a penalty.) > > I suppose we could rule under L12A1 -- and I'm suggesting this _only_ > where the revoke is the _direct_ cause of the bad claim -- but I know > David won't like this idea, and I'm not fond of it myself. And I, of course, think it is illegal. > What I really think is that the whole interaction of revokes, claims, > and concessions could do with some serious attention from the WBFLC. > But until 2007, we just have to muddle along with what we have. > I have nothing to contribute to this thread that you couldn't all deduce for yourself from what I have already said on the similar case. But just in case you wanted to hear my voice: 1) I completely agree with the suggested approach--we resolve the claim 'playing hearts' by playing hearts. We then give the revoke penalty based on that. If this yields fewer tricks for declarer than if there had been no revoke at all, _then_ and only then we invoke L64C to award the latter ['if there had been no revoke'] number of tricks. This may completely wash out the revoke penalty. 2) I see nothing unfair, illegal, or inequitable about this, so I'm happy with it. -Grant Sterling, cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 07:00:35 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA28954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:00:35 +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 HAA28949 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:00:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) id QAA23661 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:01:29 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <199906282101.QAA23661@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Club Games To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridgelaws) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:01:29 -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 Steve W. wrote: > > At 02:00 AM 6/28/99 +0100, David wrote: > > > Oh, well, that solves the problem of getting a decent number of > > >masterpoints issued in ACBL games: ring up thirty other clubs, and agree > > >to call their weekly duplicates all part of one event: put the scores > > >together, and hey presto, zillions of master-points! > > > From: Eric Landau > > I would guess that David wrote this with his tongue in his cheek, and that > > he'd probably be surprised to know that this happens routinely in the ACBL. > > It's called a "tournament in clubs", and requires a special sanction from > > the League. > > I think it's "Sectional Tournament at Clubs" (STaC), but I thought the > regulations required boards to be duplicated at all sites. It is still > a fine way to distribute lots of master points somewhat at random. > > Failing to duplicate the boards increases the randomness quite a lot, > of course. > > In spite of David's obvious facetious intent, is there anything in ACBL > regulations that would prevent multi-site club games being scored as a > single event? Of course the awards would be at club level, not > sectional level, but still, the overall places would award lots of > master points. > I, myself, received a very large silver point award playing in a local club game, without duplicated boards, compared with several other clubs through the area. I thought this was a STaC, but perhaps it was some other special promotion--whatever it was, it was absurd, despite my having profitted by it. -Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 07:19:56 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:19:56 +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 HAA29093 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:19:47 +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 OAA12592; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:19:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199906282119.OAA12592@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Advice from on high. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Jun 1999 12:55:11 PDT." <006401bec187$1f001f40$4f9c5ccf@host> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:19:01 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > This is fundamentally a marketing-driven problem. We need to speak to it for > what it is if we hope to change it. It is somewhat like the inferior scoring > of the 22 table club game Marv wrote about: intended to make Susie Kumquat > happy. You're right. It's wrong for the ACBL to have "making Susie Kumquat happy" as one of its goals. A more reasonable goal would be "making ME happy." Seriously: People on r.g.b and BLML often take for granted that "the good of bridge", whatever that is, should be the overriding concern of the ACBL and other SO's. But the ACBL undoubtedly has other goals besides this, such as the need to make bridge fun for its members (remember, bridge *is* a game!) and to remain financially able to put on tournaments that both less-serious and more-serious players will enjoy without charging an arm and a leg for an entry fee. I don't always know just what the goals of the ACBL are, and often I don't think the people in charge really know what they're trying to accomplish, and I sometimes think they do a horrendous job of trying to accomplish it anyway, and there's probably too much internal politics that gets in the way. Fine. But I think we RGB/BLML types, who are quite serious players, need to remember that we aren't the only bridge players around, and that the ACBL also wants to serve those whose enjoyment of the game comes from something other than having auctions with lots of cute little toys in them. Not too long ago, the ACBL Bulletin printed two letters side by side, one from a young player who complained that the ACBL's restrictions on conventions were keeping people out of the game, and another from a player who felt that the ACBL would die if it didn't go back to allowing only Stayman and Blackwood. Posters on RGB/BLML often seem to think that the concerns of "our" group, who generally want to be able to play anything they want, are legitimate, and the concerns of the "other" group, for whom the game isn't as much fun if they have to deal with all sorts of weird systems, are not legitimate and that those players should all just go back to playing at their kitchen tables if they don't like it. I strongly believe that this type of thinking has to be avoided. Personally, I'd like to see the ACBL give more recognition to the chasm between "more serious" and "less serious" players, and come up with two tracks so that players can choose which type of event they want to play in. I was hoping that Bridge America would help in this regard, but it hasn't caught on (poor marketing?). On the other hand, we already have flighted and strati-flighted events, and perhaps we use that to make more of a distinction---by assuming that those in the higher flight are serious players who would prefer to play in a game where the purity of the game is taken seriously and the need for "protection" is downplayed, and that those in the lower flights are less-serious players who just want to relax and enjoy the game. Then, all the higher-flight games would be at least MidChart, and they can do whatever they want in the lower-flight games---ban psyches, penalize convention disruption, put restrictions on natural bids---I don't care. (Yes, such restrictions would be against the Laws, but nobody has ever given me a reason why I should care about that. After all, it's not as if the Laws are some embodiment of divine perfection handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai. They were written by mortals who had their own ideas about what was best for the game, just like those in charge of the ACBL have their own ideas.) Then, we'd probably have to devise a way so that less-serious players who have accumulated tons of masterpoints just by playing a whole lot could still play in the lower-flighted games. (This is something that the ACBL has already recognized a need for.) Then we can make sure that psyching artificial bids and conventions after an 8-10 notrump opening are legal in the higher-flighted events. A couple random points: I'm not at all convinced that banning conventions over 8-10 notrumps or psyches of artificial bids, or for that matter any of the other restrictions people tend to complain about, has had any significant detrimental effect except an increase in the amount of grousing. There are probably a few young people who are turned off of the game because the ACBL won't let them play whatever system they want, but I suspect that number is pretty tiny. There are a number of reasons why young people aren't taking up the game the way they used to, and I suspect the biggest reasons are cultural and have nothing to do with anything the League is or isn't doing, except perhaps poor marketing. And finally, I'm a bit bothered by all the bandwidth devoted to complaining about super-weak notrumps and psyches of artificial bids, when there are other restrictions that I believe are worse for the game. In particular, I think the ACBL's restrictions on transfer advances and Responder's Reverse Flannery are worse for the game than restrictions on conventions after super-weak notrumps and psyching of artificial bids, even though the former restrictions are clearly legal according to the Laws. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 07:25:38 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:25:38 +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 HAA29170 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:25:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehch.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.69.145]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA23931 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:25:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990628172321.0144a168@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:23:21 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Club Games In-Reply-To: <199906281708.NAA13796@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:08 PM 6/28/99 -0400, Steve (inter alia) wrote: >In spite of David's obvious facetious intent, is there anything in ACBL >regulations that would prevent multi-site club games being scored as a >single event? Of course the awards would be at club level, not >sectional level, but still, the overall places would award lots of >master points. > The whole thread has gone somewhat off-topic, which is fine. But honestly, I have a difficult time taking any discussion about master point awards very seriously in a forum in which high level questions about bridge laws are debated. As I'm sure everyone in this discussion would agree, master points are just a largely meaningless, if highly successful, marketing ploy. Concerns about "fairness" in a rating system so fundamentally capricious and arbitrary are inevitably overdrawn. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 07:55:27 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA29297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:55:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29291 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:55:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-220-245.s499.tnt5.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.220.245]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA28432 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101bec1b0$d0eab480$f5dc7ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:54:30 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 12:43 PM Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Given the last discussion on this issue, I was going to stay out of this one. However, in light of the posted comments, I felt that there should be at least one voice in favor of giving the benefit of a dubious situation to the non-offenders. > > John Probst wrote: > > > >Is it presumptous to inquire for the purpose of adjudication of a claim that > > >when claimer states that hearts are to be played it is spades that are > > >played instead? > > > > The claim was based on the fact that South *knew* that West had no clubs > > as he had failed to follow to an earlier round. It is therefore obvious > > to play on H and win all the returns that West *can* make. Routine claim > > at the YC. No argument. Unfortunately West had concealed his clubs by > > revoking. Damage. L64C. > > But if you use L64C, you can't award an assigned score and THEN award > a revoke penalty, can you? It seems that that's what you did. You > determined that declarer stated a line of play based on bad > information due to West's irregularity; you then determined that > declarer would have adopted a different line had he had correct > information, and you assigned a score based on that different line. > All that is fine. But L70 doesn't let you alter the claimer's stated > line of play, so it seems to me that L64C is the only way to make a > ruling by assuming declarer adopts a different line of play. But if > you apply L64C and assign a score, I don't think you can then award a > revoke penalty on top of that. L64C takes effect only *after* you > award a revoke penalty and then decide that this penalty is > insufficient compensation. > > So I don't see a legitimate way to give East-West fewer than 2 of the > last 7 tricks. > > -- Adam > Start with the claim. On the line stated by Declarer, he will take 3 tricks. That's it for the claim (at least for now). Now go to the revoke. In order for Declarer to be held to 3 tricks, W must win a trick with a club. So, the revoke penalty is two tricks. Declarer winds up with five tricks, and defenders ends up with 2. Coincidentally, that is the same number of tricks Declarer would have won in the complete absence of a revoke. So it appears equity is restored, and that's the end of it. Obviously I don't think this is true, or I wouldn't bother to post. There are several ways one can approach this. For a start, we can take a look at "equity". Exactly what was Declarer's equity at the time he made the claim? Five tricks? No, it was actually six. Five tricks through easy play, and one trick for the revoke penalty. (Yep, I'm including the penalty trick as part of equity at the time the infraction altered the play. There are obviously good arguments that can be made against doing this. At the same time, that actually was the number of tricks Declarer would have won at that point in the hand had he not been led astray by the infraction. IMO that too can be considered equity.) Was the bad claim a direct result of the infraction? Yes. Restore the score to what it would have been had Declarer's play/claim not been influenced by the infraction. 6 tricks for Declarer. Don't like the equity argument? No problem. First the claim, 3 tricks to Declarer. Then look at the influence of the revoke on the claim and apply 72B1 (could defender have known at the time of the revoke it could cause a misplay? Yep.) Adjust the claim so that Declarer now has 5 tricks. Finally, decide the revoke penalty (1 trick). Again, Declarer winds up with 6. If all else fails, it's back to 12A1. Declarer had 6 tricks, inclusive of the revoke penalty. As a direct result of the infraction, they were compressed to 5. If the other Laws do not provide redress for the violation, then we fall back on this. I'm not in love with any of these arguments, and agree that this is a gray area in the Laws. However, I was trained that when such a situation occurs, I give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders. I don't go out of my way to punish revokes, but I certainly don't go out of my way *not* to punish them. West revoked. We restore the normal line of play that would have occurred without the revoke, and then apply the appropriate revoke penalty. Several Laws give us ways to do this. Seems logical to me. I'm not entirely sure why we're suddenly allowing revokers to profit from the consequential damage caused by their infraction. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 08:26:16 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:26:16 +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 IAA29403 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:26:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from ehc.edu (98AEE3E2.ipt.aol.com [152.174.227.226]) by ehcmail.ehc.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2232.9) id N5TW1B7S; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:22:08 -0400 Message-ID: <3777F6A9.211B9AB@ehc.edu> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:26:49 -0400 From: John Kuchenbrod X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L74B3 (premature detachment) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This occurred during my game this afternoon. The directions are changed to conform to BLML standards. South is in a 7NT contract. South has 10 tricks outside of hearts-- no more, no less. Here's the heart situation: H KJTx H Qxx2 H xx H Axx After trick five, the lead is in dummy. Hearts have not been touched prior to this point. At trick six, the Jack is called from dummy. >From the bidding, it is obvious that South has the Ace. West is a player who habitually breaks L74B3 in that he prematurely detaches cards in anticipation of play. Anticipating the play of the ace, he detaches the 2 but does not face it. South notices that West has detached a card and decides to play low. West reattaches the deuce and plays the queen. I ruled 7NT down one and issued a 1/4-board procedural penalty to East-West. Both sides appealed (NS appealed the down one, EW appealed the PP), with a committee supporting my ruling. I e-mailed ACBL, who pretty much told me that the ball was in my court since my ruling did not violate the Law but pointed out L73F2. My questions are: (1) do you agree with the ruling? (2) does the "this law" in L73F apply just to L73 or to the entire chapter? (3) does it matter if South said whether or not he would go up with the ace? In discussion of the ruling, he indicated that he would have gone up with the ace. An hour later, he called me to tell me that he was going to finesse, but West's detachment indicated to him that East had the queen. Does it matter what South thinks? In all honesty, I didn't consider L73 at the time since I considered the issue to be an etiquette and not a communication problem. I would be open to L73F2 if I were convinced that it were appropriate. If it matters, everyone involved with the play was Life Master. In fact, the top three players in that session (masterpoint-wise) were at the table. Thanks, John -- | Dr. John A. Kuchenbrod | jkuchen@ehc.edu <---note new address!!! | From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 08:39:57 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA29467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:39:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from legend.idworld.net (root@legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29462 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:39:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (dnas-05-41.sat.idworld.net [209.142.68.65]) by legend.idworld.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA13893; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:39:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3777F83F.68CE9F4F@txdirect.net> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:33:35 -0500 From: "Albert \"BiigAl\" Lochli" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Willner , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: Club Games References: <199906281708.NAA13796@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > At 02:00 AM 6/28/99 +0100, David wrote: > > > Oh, well, that solves the problem of getting a decent number of > > >masterpoints issued in ACBL games: ring up thirty other clubs, and agree > > >to call their weekly duplicates all part of one event: put the scores > > >together, and hey presto, zillions of master-points! > > > From: Eric Landau > > I would guess that David wrote this with his tongue in his cheek, and that > > he'd probably be surprised to know that this happens routinely in the ACBL. > > It's called a "tournament in clubs", and requires a special sanction from > > the League. > > I think it's "Sectional Tournament at Clubs" (STaC), but I thought the > regulations required boards to be duplicated at all sites. It is still > a fine way to distribute lots of master points somewhat at random. > > Failing to duplicate the boards increases the randomness quite a lot, > of course. > > In spite of David's obvious facetious intent, is there anything in ACBL > regulations that would prevent multi-site club games being scored as a > single event? Of course the awards would be at club level, not > sectional level, but still, the overall places would award lots of > master points. Yes there are several other possibilities: The Unit wide championship, sanctioned and at several site. Shuffle aaand deal. scrored cross the unit for and overall. Club level game. Generally requires a minimum of 3 or 5 tables at each site. . There are up to 16 other unit wide games, many of which may be multi-site, permitted annually. I know our unit takes religious advantage of all that are allowed. There are some restriction son the unit-wide games, game size and when held - different days et al. -- BiigAl, Al Lochli biigal@satlug.org - biigal@txdirect.net - PO Box 15701, San Antonio TX 78212-8901 - Phone: (210) 829-4274 Webmaster Units 172, 173, 187, 204, 205, 209, 225, 233, 237, SA-NABC99 SA-NABC99 webpage: http://www.txdirect.net/~bjd/NABC99/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 09:01:53 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:01:53 +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 JAA29549 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:01:46 +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 QAA14349; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:01:08 -0700 Message-Id: <199906282301.QAA14349@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: L74B3 (premature detachment) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:26:49 PDT." <3777F6A9.211B9AB@ehc.edu> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:01:09 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Kuchenbrod wrote: > This occurred during my game this afternoon. The directions are > changed to conform to BLML standards. > > South is in a 7NT contract. South has 10 tricks outside of hearts-- > no more, no less. Here's the heart situation: > > H KJTx > > H Qxx2 H xx > > H Axx > > After trick five, the lead is in dummy. Hearts have not been touched > prior to this point. At trick six, the Jack is called from dummy. > > >From the bidding, it is obvious that South has the Ace. West is a > player who habitually breaks L74B3 in that he prematurely detaches > cards in anticipation of play. Anticipating the play of the ace, > he detaches the 2 but does not face it. > > South notices that West has detached a card and decides to play low. > West reattaches the deuce and plays the queen. > > I ruled 7NT down one and issued a 1/4-board procedural penalty to > East-West. Both sides appealed (NS appealed the down one, EW > appealed the PP), with a committee supporting my ruling. I e-mailed > ACBL, who pretty much told me that the ball was in my court since > my ruling did not violate the Law but pointed out L73F2. > > My questions are: > > (1) do you agree with the ruling? I'd change the score to 7NT making. > (2) does the "this law" in L73F apply just to L73 or to the entire > chapter? In normal English usage, Law 72, Law 73, and Law 74 are three laws, not one; while the word "this" pertains to exactly one instance of something. So I believe "this law" refers to Law 73. In particular, it doesn't apply to L74B3, part of the law which deals with courtesy and etiquette. It's a violation of etiquette to detach a card before it's your turn; however, in this case, I believe West's action was much more than a violation of etiquette. In this situation, West can't know for sure what South is going to do, so he can't know which card he's going to play. Therefore, to detach his card in this situation is inexcusable, and is covered by the clause in 73F2: "could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit". This is the case even if West was darn sure that South would go up with the ace. > (3) does it matter if South said whether or not he would go up with > the ace? In discussion of the ruling, he indicated that he would > have gone up with the ace. An hour later, he called me to tell > me that he was going to finesse, but West's detachment indicated > to him that East had the queen. Does it matter what South thinks? Not really. Once we decide to adjust, we give South the most favorable result that was at all likely, and certainly guessing the hearts correctly should be considered a likely result, since it appears to be a straight guess. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 09:36:44 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA29681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:36:44 +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 JAA29676 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:36:36 +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 QAA15040; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:35:55 -0700 Message-Id: <199906282335.QAA15040@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:54:30 PDT." <001101bec1b0$d0eab480$f5dc7ad1@hdavis> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:35:56 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > Don't like the equity argument? No problem. First the claim, 3 tricks to > Declarer. Then look at the influence of the revoke on the claim and apply > 72B1 (could defender have known at the time of the revoke it could cause a > misplay? Yep.) Adjust the claim so that Declarer now has 5 tricks. > Finally, decide the revoke penalty (1 trick). Again, Declarer winds up with > 6. Sorry, but I find trying to apply L72B1 to a revoke to be somewhat bizarre, since the revoke laws are pretty complete in determining what penalty should be assessed. > If all else fails, it's back to 12A1. Declarer had 6 tricks, inclusive of > the revoke penalty. As a direct result of the infraction, they were > compressed to 5. If the other Laws do not provide redress for the > violation, then we fall back on this. 'Scuse me? Declarer had 6 tricks, inclusive of the revoke penalty, which means that declarer's tricks got increased to 6 because of the infraction; then they get reduced to five because of the infraction; and declarer is supposed to get redress for his "loss", because the infraction cheated him out of a trick? This sounds even more bizarre than the previous reasoning. > I'm not entirely sure why we're suddenly allowing revokers to profit from > the consequential damage caused by their infraction. We're not. Without the revoke, the defense gets two more tricks. With the revoke, according to the way I rule it, the defense gets two more tricks. So how is the defense profiting from the infraction? The revoke did not cause the offenders to get any extra tricks. If you don't like it, then argue for L64C to be modified to assess a one-trick revoke penalty after the assigned score. (This may not be a bad idea.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 10:00:42 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:00:42 +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 KAA29771 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:00:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem101.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.101] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10ykiz-0001pi-00; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:22:06 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:02:50 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. -ooOoo- > From: Michael S. Dennis > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Advice from on high. > Date: 28 June 1999 04:34 > > At 02:47 AM 6/28/99 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >+++ To say that no convention may be used with a 10-12 natural NT > >opener is a regulation establishing conditions for the use of the > >conventions, not a regulation of the opener. ~ Grattan ~ +++ > > I am sorry to have to say so, but that is mere sophistry. +++ Legalistic in its literal interpretation of the law, but agreed by Kaplan before its adoption to be a regulation within the terms of the laws. It was merely a way of using the Kaplan technique of deciding what course you wished to pursue and then finding a way to do so within the law, a game more than one can play. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 10:08:06 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:08:06 +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 KAA29805 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:07:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem101.hulk.pol.co.uk ([195.92.6.101] helo=srnmoigo) by svr-a-04.core.theplanet.net with esmtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10ykj1-0001pi-00; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:22:08 +0100 From: "Grattan" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: Helping TDs with the basics Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 00:19:44 +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 --------------------------------------------------------- "Perhaps the greatest consolation of the oppressed is to consider themselves superior to their tyrants." - Julien Green. -ooOoo- ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Helping TDs with the basics > Date: 12 June 1999 23:53 > > > Recently there was a suggestion that I might put articles on my web > site to try and help the average TD. > -------------------- \x/ ---------------------------- > > One problem is that I have difficulty writing unless someone gives me > a problem or situation: then I can always write about the answer. So > what I am doing here is asking you: what sort of articles do you think > would be useful for a special section designed to help TDs with their > basic approach, and suitable throughout the world? > +++ Interestingly one of the first moves of the incoming EBL President has been to set up a (new) committee on Tournament Director training. I think it will probably need to start by defining its role. I await to learn with some interest its precise composition. ~ Grattan ~ +++ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 10:23:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA29880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:23:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29874 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:23:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA21810 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:23:13 -0800 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 15:47:18 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Player makes own wrong ruling Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ReSent-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:23:03 -0800 (AKDT) ReSent-From: Gordon Bower ReSent-To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ReSent-Subject: Player makes own wrong ruling ReSent-Message-ID: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is an amusing little incident that happened at the club here a few weeks ago: South deals and opens 1C (playing Standard American). The final contract is 3C by West, the opening bid notwithstanding. Before North leads, South says "Don't lead my suit, partner!" The comment is obviously inappropriate, but equally obviously a tongue-in-cheek comment about how strange the auction was, not a deliberate effort to influence North's opening lead. (Both sides agree to these facts.) West quite rightly protests that South should not have said what she did, and that he is entitled to some sort of protection or redress for it. Instead of calling the director, West tells North, "since South told you not to lead a club, I'm going to demand that you lead a club." It isn't entirely clear how seriously West intended the remark, but my impression was that West sincerely believed that was what the laws said to do. North isn't sure he should have to lead a club, and (finally!) they summon a director. (West is a mediocre player who thinks he is hot stuff, North is a novice.) I have to sort out the mess. I sort of stare in disbelief at the imaginative "ruling" as I gather the facts. I explain Law 16 to everyone, tell North he doesn't really have to lead a club if he has some other reasonably normal lead he'd rather make, and lecture West about calling the director instead of making his own rulings in the future. It turned out not to matter much what North led. But it does raise a few questions. In the absence of West's pseudo-ruling, "don't lead a club" would seem to demonstrably (?) suggest leading any other card and actaully would make North lead a club unless it was utterly unreasonable to do so. It seems peculiar that "don't do __" causes so much worse UI trouble than "do ___" does. West's pseudo-ruling seems to fall in the "may jeopardize his right to penalize" category, but I was also unsure just how far to go with that -- my seat-of-the-pants solution was to say North could make some other reasonably obvious lead but not try any masterminding with an otherwise inexplicable lead. I was just about annoyed enough at West to say "lead whatever the **** you want, North" but that seemed like going too far. Thoughts? (Other than the obvious "this should never have happened".) GRB From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 10:49:00 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA00149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:49:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from sand2.global.net.uk (sand2.global.net.uk [195.147.246.100]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA00143 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:48:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from p88s03a03.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.163.137] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand2.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10ym4b-0001qD-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:48:29 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: L74B3 (premature detachment) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 01:54:23 +0100 Message-ID: <01bec1c9$edaedd80$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 Kuchenbrod To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 12:50 AM Subject: L74B3 (premature detachment) >This occurred during my game this afternoon. The directions are >changed to conform to BLML standards. > >South is in a 7NT contract. South has 10 tricks outside of hearts-- >no more, no less. Here's the heart situation: > > H KJTx > >H Qxx2 H xx > > H Axx > >After trick five, the lead is in dummy. Hearts have not been touched >prior to this point. At trick six, the Jack is called from dummy. > >From the bidding, it is obvious that South has the Ace. West is a >player who habitually breaks L74B3 in that he prematurely detaches >cards in anticipation of play. Anticipating the play of the ace, >he detaches the 2 but does not face it. > >South notices that West has detached a card and decides to play low. >West reattaches the deuce and plays the queen. > >I ruled 7NT down one and issued a 1/4-board procedural penalty to >East-West. Both sides appealed (NS appealed the down one, EW >appealed the PP), with a committee supporting my ruling. I e-mailed >ACBL, who pretty much told me that the ball was in my court since >my ruling did not violate the Law but pointed out L73F2. > >My questions are: > >(1) do you agree with the ruling? >(2) does the "this law" in L73F apply just to L73 or to the entire > chapter? >(3) does it matter if South said whether or not he would go up with > the ace? In discussion of the ruling, he indicated that he would > have gone up with the ace. An hour later, he called me to tell > me that he was going to finesse, but West's detachment indicated > to him that East had the queen. Does it matter what South thinks? > >In all honesty, I didn't consider L73 at the time since I considered >the issue to be an etiquette and not a communication problem. I would >be open to L73F2 if I were convinced that it were appropriate. > >If it matters, everyone involved with the play was Life Master. In >fact, the top three players in that session (masterpoint-wise) >were at the table. At the time that West detatched the H2, could he have known that this premature action could work to the benefit of his side? Yes. If it is his habit to play prematurely, and this play is in tempo for him, I think he might have detatched the HQ, and had to replace it if the HA was played. I use Law73 and apply Law 12C. N/S 7NT= I don't disagree with the PP for breach of Law74B3 . Whatever is the standard fine in your jurisdiction.10% would be the going rate here. Good players are able to use such ploys and should not be allowed to get away with doing so. An interesting point :-does it matter how capable West is. A beginner "could" have known, but is unlikely to be able to think quickly enough. An average player "could have known, and may think faster. An expert "could" and "would" have known. I remember a very similar case when I ruled against a modest player. I thought he "could" have known, mainly because I "would" have and I'm not great. AC ruled against me because they said "He didn't know". Does it make a difference if a small card is played from dummy when Dec hold A9x? Anne From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 11:44:17 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:44:17 +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 LAA00525 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:44:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivehka.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.70.138]) by smtp0.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA22885 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990628214144.0154fac8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:41:44 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:47 PM 6/28/99 -0800, Gordon wrote: > >Here is an amusing little incident that happened at the club here a few >weeks ago: > >South deals and opens 1C (playing Standard American). > >The final contract is 3C by West, the opening bid notwithstanding. > >Before North leads, South says "Don't lead my suit, partner!" The comment >is obviously inappropriate, but equally obviously a tongue-in-cheek >comment about how strange the auction was, not a deliberate effort to >influence North's opening lead. (Both sides agree to these facts.) It seems to me that this is the key point. If both sides acknowledge that South's comment was simply in jest, as you appear to state, then there is no information, authorized or otherwise. South was just kidding around, and his comment neither endorses nor discourages a club lead. No protection of West's rights is required, and North can lead whatever he wants. Which is not to say we must ignore South's transgression, which it is. As a player who likes to maintain a fairly light-hearted atmosphere at the table, I try to be sensitive to the fact that some opponents prefer (and, IMO, are entitled to) a more serious demeanor. South's comment is out of line, if only in his lack of sensitivity to the opponents' lack of humor. Depending on his record of previous conduct and the general atmoshpere and style of the club where this happened, it seems to me that some slap on the wrist between a warning and a very mild PP might well be in order. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 15:13:20 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA01051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:13:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA01046 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id PAA08380; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:12:37 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falgate.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V2.1) id xma008318; Tue, 29 Jun 99 15:12:29 +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 PAA27011 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:12:28 +1000 Received: from newmanpm.fujitsu.com.au by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10566; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:15:51 +1000 Message-Id: <4.1.19990629150620.009a1660@sercit> X-Sender: petern@sercit X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:11:05 +1000 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Peter Newman Subject: Substitution Formula Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, The NSWBA (NSW Bridge Association) runs all state events here. We have a policy that for butler pair events and for teams event that substitutes should be of roughly equivalent standard. We believe it is important to try and keep our events fair and this is one way to do it. All substitutes are meant to be approved by the Director (or Tournament Committee) before the relevant session. Unfortunately, sometimes people don't inform the director until just before the start of the session that there will be a substitute. If the director deems that the substitute is of inappropriate standard (either too strong or too weak) the matter is referred to TC to handle. We have a standard formula that we use here but it isn't particularly good. I am interested in how other organisations handle this problem. [If you have formulas in place for score adjustments I would be particularly interested.] TIA, Peter Newman Chairman - NSWBA Tournament Committee (http://www.nswba.com.au) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 19:27:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:27:45 +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 TAA01660 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:26:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Tue, 29 Jun 1999 11:26:05 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990629112624.007c5950@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, 29 Jun 1999 11:26:24 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-Reply-To: <001101bec1b0$d0eab480$f5dc7ad1@hdavis> References: <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (sniph) >I'm not entirely sure why we're suddenly allowing revokers to profit from >the consequential damage caused by their infraction. Sorry but that is really offside. In no case there is anyone who profits by revoking. After the correcting of the score he is (sometimes) in the same position as he would without the revoke. NO PROFIT Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 23:30:22 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:30:22 +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 XAA02226 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:30:13 +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 IAA46214 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:29:20 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0BVYN006 Tue, 29 Jun 99 08:27:43 Message-ID: <9906290827.0BVYN00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 99 08:27:43 Subject: PLAYER MAKES To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Interesting. From the appendix of 1957 edition of Goren's New Contract Bridge Complete . Law 20b [laws of contract bridge] If the offense occurred after the auction closed, declarer or either defender, as the case may be, may require the offender's partner withdraw any lead or play which may have been suggested by the improper remark...and substitute a card which does not conform to the improper suggestion. The penalty may be exacted on any trick subsequent but only on one trick...... B>Here is an amusing little incident that happened at the club here a few B>weeks ago: B>South deals and opens 1C (playing Standard American). B>The final contract is 3C by West, the opening bid notwithstanding. B>Before North leads, South says "Don't lead my suit, partner!" The B>comment is obviously inappropriate, but equally obviously a B>tongue-in-cheek comment about how strange the auction was, not a B>deliberate effort to influence North's opening lead. (Both sides agree B>to these facts.) B>West quite rightly protests that South should not have said what she B>did, and that he is entitled to some sort of protection or redress for B>it. B>Instead of calling the director, West tells North, "since South told you B>not to lead a club, I'm going to demand that you lead a club." It isn't B>entirely clear how seriously West intended the remark, but my impression B>was that West sincerely believed that was what the laws said to do. B>North isn't sure he should have to lead a club, and (finally!) they B>summon a director. (West is a mediocre player who thinks he is hot B>stuff, North is a novice.) I have to sort out the mess. B>I sort of stare in disbelief at the imaginative "ruling" as I gather the B>facts. I explain Law 16 to everyone, tell North he doesn't really have B>to lead a club if he has some other reasonably normal lead he'd rather B>make, and lecture West about calling the director instead of making his B>own rulings in the future. B>It turned out not to matter much what North led. But it does raise a few B>questions. In the absence of West's pseudo-ruling, "don't lead a club" B>would seem to demonstrably (?) suggest leading any other card and B>actaully would make North lead a club unless it was utterly unreasonable B>to do so. imo, if N has no LA to a suit [other than a club] he must lead that suit, otherwise he must lead a club in order to comply with L16. It seems that this could be a way for S to mastermind getting N [to comply with L16] to lead a killing club when he would tend to shy away from a club lead and hence may be subject to L72B1 [apparently not applicable here]. B>It seems peculiar that "don't do __" causes so much worse UI trouble B>than "do ___" does. B>West's pseudo-ruling seems to fall in the "may jeopardize his right to B>penalize" category, but I was also unsure just how far to go with that B>-- my seat-of-the-pants solution was to say North could make some other B>reasonably obvious lead but not try any masterminding with an otherwise B>inexplicable lead. I was just about annoyed enough at West to say "lead B>whatever the **** you want, North" but that seemed like going too far. B>Thoughts? (Other than the obvious "this should never have happened".) A noticeable PP for the improper communication, as a minimum. B>GRB B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 23:35:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:35:23 +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 XAA02253 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:35:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-123.uunet.be [194.7.145.123]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01120 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:01:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <377888C8.ED56E635@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:50:16 +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: fun from malta References: <1.5.4.32.19990623234512.006df374@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Yvan Calame wrote: > > From: 99etc - bulletin 11 > > Pulling a Director > by Chris Dixon > This article deservedly won the prize for funniest article in the bulletin at the closing ceremony. Well done Chris. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 23:35:29 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:35:29 +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 XAA02258 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:35:21 +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 IAA46199 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:28:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0BVWR005 Tue, 29 Jun 99 08:27:40 Message-ID: <9906290827.0BVWR00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 99 08:27:40 Subject: REVOKE AN To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When the thread was started objections were raised that the play of the hand was not provided. In a sense those objections have been proven valid because several have 'ruled' that claimer is entitled to the transfer of a penalty trick ostensibly for the reason he was deceived into claiming. Imo, the 2 trick transfer provisions account for the frequent event that a revoke will gain a trick, either from ruffing with a losing trump, or by having new found length in the revoke suit. The 2 trick transfer accounts for the sum of a 'free penalty trick' and the unfairly gained trick- in other words, it is an approximation of adequate penalty for most occasions.. Imo, 64C provides for the case that NOS has lost tricks beyond the compensation. The adjusted score is to assure that the NOS is no worse off than if the revoke had not occurred. The word equity has found its way into posts on this thread. But equity is in the caption and imo is a catch all word to help find the law- so a strict reading of L64C does not include equity. It does call for the director to make a judgement about adequate compensation. I can visualize that a person can feel that if a revoke penalty was possible before the claim they are not adequately compensated if they do not get an extra trick after 64A is applied. If so, it follows that the NOS was not adequately compensated by only 2 tricks. So, in that case L12C2 applies and the irregularity being the revoke, the adjusted score does not reflect a revoke penalty. As to the question whether a player is entitled to an extra trick revoke penalty in the situation discussed, imo 64B2 appears to speak to the issue in a round about way- subsequent revokes in the same suit are not penalized by a separate trick penalty. This seems to say that there is a limit to trick penalties and that is when L64C provides the adjudication. Imo, whether or not adjudicators or players are satisfied with how 64 is written it does not appear to have 'gray areas' even though posts indicate otherwise. B>----- Original Message ----- B>From: Adam Beneschan B>To: B>Cc: B>Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 12:43 PM B>Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM B>Given the last discussion on this issue, I was going to stay out of this B>one. However, in light of the posted comments, I felt that there should B>be at least one voice in favor of giving the benefit of a dubious B>situation to the non-offenders. B>> B>> John Probst wrote: B>> B>> > >Is it presumptous to inquire for the purpose of adjudication of a B>claim that B>> > >when claimer states that hearts are to be played it is spades that B>are > > >played instead? B>> > B>> > The claim was based on the fact that South *knew* that West had no B>clubs > > as he had failed to follow to an earlier round. It is B>therefore obvious > > to play on H and win all the returns that West B>*can* make. Routine claim > > at the YC. No argument. Unfortunately West B>had concealed his clubs by > > revoking. Damage. L64C. B>> B>> But if you use L64C, you can't award an assigned score and THEN award B>> a revoke penalty, can you? It seems that that's what you did. You B>> determined that declarer stated a line of play based on bad B>> information due to West's irregularity; you then determined that B>> declarer would have adopted a different line had he had correct B>> information, and you assigned a score based on that different line. B>> All that is fine. But L70 doesn't let you alter the claimer's stated B>> line of play, so it seems to me that L64C is the only way to make a B>> ruling by assuming declarer adopts a different line of play. But if B>> you apply L64C and assign a score, I don't think you can then award a B>> revoke penalty on top of that. L64C takes effect only *after* you B>> award a revoke penalty and then decide that this penalty is B>> insufficient compensation. B>> B>> So I don't see a legitimate way to give East-West fewer than 2 of the B>> last 7 tricks. B>> B>> -- Adam B>> B>Start with the claim. On the line stated by Declarer, he will take 3 B>tricks. That's it for the claim (at least for now). B>Now go to the revoke. In order for Declarer to be held to 3 tricks, W B>must win a trick with a club. So, the revoke penalty is two tricks. B>Declarer winds up with five tricks, and defenders ends up with 2. B>Coincidentally, that is the same number of tricks Declarer would have B>won in the complete absence of a revoke. So it appears equity is B>restored, and that's the end of it. Obviously I don't think this is B>true, or I wouldn't bother to post. B>There are several ways one can approach this. For a start, we can take B>a look at "equity". Exactly what was Declarer's equity at the time he B>made the claim? Five tricks? No, it was actually six. Five tricks B>through easy play, and one trick for the revoke penalty. (Yep, I'm B>including the penalty trick as part of equity at the time the infraction B>altered the play. There are obviously good arguments that can be made B>against doing this. At the same time, that actually was the number of B>tricks Declarer would have won at that point in the hand had he not been B>led astray by the infraction. IMO that too can be considered equity.) B>Was the bad claim a direct result of the infraction? Yes. Restore the B>score to what it would have been had Declarer's play/claim not been B>influenced by the infraction. 6 tricks for Declarer. B>Don't like the equity argument? No problem. First the claim, 3 tricks B>to Declarer. Then look at the influence of the revoke on the claim and B>apply 72B1 (could defender have known at the time of the revoke it could B>cause a misplay? Yep.) Adjust the claim so that Declarer now has 5 B>tricks. B>Finally, decide the revoke penalty (1 trick). Again, Declarer winds up B>with 6. B>If all else fails, it's back to 12A1. Declarer had 6 tricks, inclusive B>of the revoke penalty. As a direct result of the infraction, they were B>compressed to 5. If the other Laws do not provide redress for the B>violation, then we fall back on this. B>I'm not in love with any of these arguments, and agree that this is a B>gray area in the Laws. However, I was trained that when such a B>situation occurs, I give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders. B>I don't go out of my way to punish revokes, but I certainly don't go out B>of my way *not* to punish them. West revoked. We restore the normal B>line of play that would have occurred without the revoke, and then apply B>the appropriate revoke penalty. Several Laws give us ways to do this. B>Seems logical to me. B>I'm not entirely sure why we're suddenly allowing revokers to profit B>from the consequential damage caused by their infraction. B>Hirsch B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 23:35:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:35:47 +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 XAA02266 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:35:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-145-123.uunet.be [194.7.145.123]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA01124 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:01:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3778B0B8.A300C4E6@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:40:40 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Advice from on high. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forgive me to butt in on this American thread, but I have a question. Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 6/16/99 12:44:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mdfarebr@hotmail.com writes: > > > Ok, so if this is a convention, the ACBL can regulate it. *If* it is a > > convention. > Kojak here. And that is exactly what I meant. The ACBL considers a call > made to indicate that my length and strength are probably somewhere else as a > convention, I believe. Having severed financial ties to the ACBL some time > ago I may not have that exactly correct, but the Erics of BLML can find it > somewhere written out, I'm sure. > Many countries (and the WBF) have system regulations which class the systems into groups, usually indicated with colours. We know of Green, Blue, Red and Yellow systems, for example. It is permitted, even encouraged, to restrict certain competitions to certain types of systems. At the level where I play, red systems are not allowed. That would include banning certain things that are not possibly called "conventions". A few levels down, nothing but five card majors and acol is allowed. Is this thread suggesting that this is contrary to some interpretation of the Laws ? Then I suggest that that interpretation is wrong. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 23:37:23 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:37:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA02302 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:37:15 +1000 (EST) 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 OAA00793 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:37:17 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA23089 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:37:00 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:37:00 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA01859 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:36:58 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:36:58 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199906291336.OAA01859@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: DWS off-line Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson just rang me. He is suffering internet-withdrawl symptoms. He lost email/internet from Monday and it won't be back before Friday. He wanted you all to know, in case someone was awaiting his opinion with baited breath. Robin (telephone/email proxy service) -- Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 23:44:15 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:44:15 +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 XAA02349 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:44:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id IAA11165; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:42:42 -0500 (CDT) Received: from har-pa1-25.ix.netcom.com(204.32.180.57) by dfw-ix5.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011092; Tue Jun 29 08:42:10 1999 Message-ID: <000801bec235$6848a880$39b420cc@host> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:43:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 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 This is horrendous. It treats everyone in the room unfairly. They are entitled to the full time of the round to play their boards. If that means they must play the last one quickly, so be it. But it is wrong to take away a board before the time of the round has expired. It might be a passout or an easy claimer. Let's achieve results through play, not by fiat. My objection is to the arbitrary, capricious and perhaps illegal rule to start no board with five minutes left...I have no problem with reasonable accomodations to the blind players for slower play. -- Craig Senior -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Date: Monday, June 28, 1999 4:54 PM Subject: Re: Handicaps > >-----Original Message----- >From: Gordon Bower >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Date: Monday, June 28, 1999 4:30 AM >Subject: Re: Handicaps > > >> >>This thread seems like as good an opprtunity as any to present a dilemma >>with which my club is faced on a semi-regular basis. >> >>We have two longtime members with poor eyesight. Everyone in the club has >>been most accommodating as far as not using bid-boxes at that table, >>announcing plays, reading off what's in dummy as it is displayed, and so >>forth. >> >>The problem is, when these two play together, nothing on the face of this >>earth can accelerate them to a pace faster than about 9 minutes a board >>on average. The club here tends to be fairly laid-back anyway (we rarely >>finish in under 3 1/2 hours even when these two don't play) but there is >>inevitably trouble whenever they play with a slower-than-usual game. I >>assign late plays when I can, of course, but we still have to wait an >>extra five minutes after half the rounds. >> >>Where does one draw the dividing line between making reasonable >>accommodation for a handicap, and keeping one's game moving smoothly? >>One solution we have talked about is requiring them to play fewer boards >>(three instead of four per round in a 4-table game for instance) - but it >>is not clear whether this is a fair or legal thing to do, nor is it clear >>whether they should get Avg-, Avg, or whether their final score on the >>boards they do play should just be factored up. (the opponents would get >>Avg+, obviously.) Have any of you had to deal with this situation in your >>own clubs? Would any of the ACBL official types care of offer us some >>guidance? > >I'm not an ACBL official type:-( but this is what I would do, with the >approval of the club committee or whatever. >I would explain the problem to the the handicapped players and explain >that while there is a rule about 7 mins a board I do not want them to be >inconvenienced by it. >Say "Because slow play is a general problem I am going to announce that 5 >mins >before the end of the round I am going to announce "no more boards to be >started" Other players will get a score proportionate to blame. Probably >A-A- unless I know that one paticular pair is at fault. However at _your_ >table >I will award A+A unless you are slower than usual for a reason in which case >it will be A+A-" Ask them if they think it's fair? If they can play faster, >then >I think they will. If they cannot then you have made allowance for their >handicap >in a way that benefits the rest of the field as far as time of play is >concerned. >If they are visually handicapped then they may not realise that slow play is >only a problem at their table. > >>I also find that players calling out their own cards tend to name the high >>spots and honours but just say "small club" or whatever when playing a low >>spot sometimes. This creates some obvious UI problems, which, fortunately, >>have not yet come to the fore in my club, mostly thanks to the fact that, >>frankly, the pair involved did not ever seem to pay attention to the >>difference betwen fours and deuces when they could still see either. > >This can cause UI between partners as well as giving the opps help. > > >Make a rule that " In order to help Mr & Mrs Handicapped called cards >must be named accurately" > > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 29 23:51:29 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA02374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:51:29 +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 XAA02369 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:51:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau1.cais.com (dup-207-176-64-97.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy.cais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA08153 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:18:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990629080606.006f84b0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:06:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990628214144.0154fac8@pop.mindspring.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:41 PM 6/28/99 -0400, Michael wrote: >At 03:47 PM 6/28/99 -0800, Gordon wrote: > >>Before North leads, South says "Don't lead my suit, partner!" The comment >>is obviously inappropriate, but equally obviously a tongue-in-cheek >>comment about how strange the auction was, not a deliberate effort to >>influence North's opening lead. (Both sides agree to these facts.) > >It seems to me that this is the key point. If both sides acknowledge that >South's comment was simply in jest, as you appear to state, then there is >no information, authorized or otherwise. South was just kidding around, and >his comment neither endorses nor discourages a club lead. No protection of >West's rights is required, and North can lead whatever he wants. > >Which is not to say we must ignore South's transgression, which it is. As a >player who likes to maintain a fairly light-hearted atmosphere at the >table, I try to be sensitive to the fact that some opponents prefer (and, >IMO, are entitled to) a more serious demeanor. South's comment is out of >line, if only in his lack of sensitivity to the opponents' lack of humor. >Depending on his record of previous conduct and the general atmoshpere and >style of the club where this happened, it seems to me that some slap on the >wrist between a warning and a very mild PP might well be in order. I don't think the TD's ruling should be affected by whether or not the comment was made in jest. It was entirely out of line, and should be dealt with on its face; it's not the TD's job to judge a player's degree of jocularity. One can be as easy-going and light-hearted as one wants, kidding around and cracking jokes to one's heart's content, without making comments on the hand in progress, and players should understand this. 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 Jun 30 00:23:07 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:23:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f241.hotmail.com [207.82.251.132]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA04713 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 70486 invoked by uid 0); 29 Jun 1999 14:22:22 -0000 Message-ID: <19990629142222.70485.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 192.160.109.155 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:22:20 PDT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.155] From: Norman Scorbie To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 07:22:20 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote> >Here is an amusing little incident that happened at the club here a few >weeks ago: > SNIP >Before North leads, South says "Don't lead my suit, partner!" The comment >is obviously inappropriate, but equally obviously a tongue-in-cheek >comment about how strange the auction was, not a deliberate effort to >influence North's opening lead. (Both sides agree to these facts.) SNIP I explain Law 16 to everyone, tell North he doesn't really have to >lead a club if he has some other reasonably normal lead he'd rather make, >and lecture West about calling the director instead of making his own >rulings in the future. > I think that what you did was fair, but would add the following: Tell South, possibly later on, to save his jokes for someone with a sense of humour; Find the club notebook where the list of utter twits is kept and make sure that West's name is entered in it in red capitals; try to convince North that no-one was having a go at him, and that you get people like West everywhere and he shouldn't let him put him off the game, and finally, but East a drink for keeping his mouth shut throughout, in what must have been trying circumstances... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 00:32:47 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:32:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04743 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:32:38 +1000 (EST) 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 PAA02958; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:32:41 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA03448; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:32:24 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:32:23 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01877; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:32:21 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:32:21 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199906291432.PAA01877@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: Advice from on high. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > > Forgive me to butt in on this American thread, but I have a > question. > [snip] > > At the level where I play, red systems are not allowed. > That would include banning certain things that are not > possibly called "conventions". > > A few levels down, nothing but five card majors and acol is > allowed. > > Is this thread suggesting that this is contrary to some > interpretation of the Laws ? Then I suggest that that > interpretation is wrong. I wonder whether this is a can of worms which we should not open? In England, the general level of competition allows all natural bids (weak twos, non-forcing new suit responses, etc.). They even allow 1suit on less than rule-of-19 or 1M on 3 card suit or 1NT on less than 10HCP: but (you guessed it) you can't use conventions after them. However, in common with ACBL? and others??, there are simple systems events where only "basic ACOL" or some other limited set of conventions may be played. So many natural opening bids are not allowed. Is "Simple Systems" Duplicate Contract Bridge? as defined by TFLB, including Law 40. Does it matter? 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 Jun 30 00:45:48 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA04812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:45:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04807 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:45:41 +1000 (EST) 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 PAA03378 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:45:49 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA05880 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:45:30 +0100 (BST) Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:45:27 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA01884 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:45:21 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:45:21 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <199906291445.PAA01884@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > > I don't think the TD's ruling should be affected by whether or not the > comment was made in jest. It was entirely out of line, and should be dealt > with on its face; it's not the TD's job to judge a player's degree of > jocularity. One can be as easy-going and light-hearted as one wants, > kidding around and cracking jokes to one's heart's content, without making > comments on the hand in progress, and players should understand this. > Lighten up guys. Where I play (which includes some strong London clubs), jocular remarks are frequently made apparently commenting on the hand in progress. The TD is, of course, never called when the remark is taken as intended. Sometimes a remark is made by someone who has misjudged the mood of the table, as in this example. If the TD determines (e.g. if the table agrees) that the remark was a joke, there is no UI to suggest one action over another. If the remark has annoyed opponents, who wish the game to be played in a more serious atmosphere even if they recognised the remark as a joke, then a procedural penalty (warning or fine) is appropriate. 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 Jun 30 01:21:41 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:21:41 +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 BAA04974 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:21:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb3s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.180] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10yzhH-0003dI-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:21:20 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: DWS off-line Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:28:12 +0100 Message-ID: <01bec244$001392c0$LocalHost@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 3:09 PM Subject: DWS off-line >David Stevenson just rang me. > >He is suffering internet-withdrawl symptoms. Think of all the sleep he is going to get this week. > >He lost email/internet from Monday and it won't be back before Friday. Perhaps Liz has paid the @demon to do this:-)) > >He wanted you all to know, in case someone was awaiting his opinion >with baited breath. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Anne From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 01:22:09 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA04996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:22:09 +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 BAA04991 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from pb3s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.180] helo=vnmvhhid) by sand.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.05 #1) id 10yzhE-0003dI-00; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:21:16 +0100 From: "Anne Jones" To: "Craig Senior" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Handicaps Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:07:10 +0100 Message-ID: <01bec241$1003cd60$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 No it's not. And it works. Almost every event I run towards the end of each of the first two rounds, I walk around and check that everyone has started their last boards. Even to the extent of saying "you're behind time, get the cards out of your Nth board. I will _then_ (about 2 mins, 5 was an exaggeration) announce "No more boards". It gets the room playing to speed and believe it or not I have not actually removed a board for about 4 years. We all know some boards may take longer than others. We all know the habitual slow players. It is the slow players that cause the problem. Rarely is it a board that gives everyone a problem. We were asked to advise on the problem of 9 mins per board. This is an extra 2 mins per board which is an extra hour on a session, and this is not an acceptable price for the whole room to pay. This applied wisely to the blind players table will keep the room in sync. and will not make the blind players feel disadvantaged. Anne -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior To: Anne Jones ; BLML Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 3:16 PM Subject: Re: Handicaps >This is horrendous. It treats everyone in the room unfairly. They are >entitled to the full time of the round to play their boards. If that means >they must play the last one quickly, so be it. But it is wrong to take away >a board before the time of the round has expired. It might be a passout or >an easy claimer. Let's achieve results through play, not by fiat. My >objection is to the arbitrary, capricious and perhaps illegal rule to start >no board with five minutes left...I have no problem with reasonable >accomodations to the blind players for slower play. > >-- >Craig Senior >-----Original Message----- >From: Anne Jones >To: BLML >Date: Monday, June 28, 1999 4:54 PM >Subject: Re: Handicaps > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Gordon Bower >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Date: Monday, June 28, 1999 4:30 AM >>Subject: Re: Handicaps >> >> >>> >>>This thread seems like as good an opprtunity as any to present a dilemma >>>with which my club is faced on a semi-regular basis. >>> >>>We have two longtime members with poor eyesight. Everyone in the club has >>>been most accommodating as far as not using bid-boxes at that table, >>>announcing plays, reading off what's in dummy as it is displayed, and so >>>forth. >>> >>>The problem is, when these two play together, nothing on the face of this >>>earth can accelerate them to a pace faster than about 9 minutes a board >>>on average. The club here tends to be fairly laid-back anyway (we rarely >>>finish in under 3 1/2 hours even when these two don't play) but there is >>>inevitably trouble whenever they play with a slower-than-usual game. I >>>assign late plays when I can, of course, but we still have to wait an >>>extra five minutes after half the rounds. >>> >>>Where does one draw the dividing line between making reasonable >>>accommodation for a handicap, and keeping one's game moving smoothly? >>>One solution we have talked about is requiring them to play fewer boards >>>(three instead of four per round in a 4-table game for instance) - but it >>>is not clear whether this is a fair or legal thing to do, nor is it clear >>>whether they should get Avg-, Avg, or whether their final score on the >>>boards they do play should just be factored up. (the opponents would get >>>Avg+, obviously.) Have any of you had to deal with this situation in your >>>own clubs? Would any of the ACBL official types care of offer us some >>>guidance? >> >>I'm not an ACBL official type:-( but this is what I would do, with the >>approval of the club committee or whatever. >>I would explain the problem to the the handicapped players and explain >>that while there is a rule about 7 mins a board I do not want them to be >>inconvenienced by it. >>Say "Because slow play is a general problem I am going to announce that 5 >>mins >>before the end of the round I am going to announce "no more boards to be >>started" Other players will get a score proportionate to blame. Probably >>A-A- unless I know that one paticular pair is at fault. However at _your_ >>table >>I will award A+A unless you are slower than usual for a reason in which >case >>it will be A+A-" Ask them if they think it's fair? If they can play faster, >>then >>I think they will. If they cannot then you have made allowance for their >>handicap >>in a way that benefits the rest of the field as far as time of play is >>concerned. >>If they are visually handicapped then they may not realise that slow play >is >>only a problem at their table. >> >>>I also find that players calling out their own cards tend to name the high >>>spots and honours but just say "small club" or whatever when playing a low >>>spot sometimes. This creates some obvious UI problems, which, fortunately, >>>have not yet come to the fore in my club, mostly thanks to the fact that, >>>frankly, the pair involved did not ever seem to pay attention to the >>>difference betwen fours and deuces when they could still see either. >> >>This can cause UI between partners as well as giving the opps help. >> >> >>Make a rule that " In order to help Mr & Mrs Handicapped called cards >>must be named accurately" >> >> > > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 01:50:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA05094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:50:45 +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 BAA05088 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:50:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from ip88.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk ([195.249.150.88]) by fep4.post.tele.dk (InterMail v4.0 201-221) with SMTP id <19990629155028.EUNG3334.fep4@ip88.hsnxr1.ras.tele.dk> for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:50:28 +0200 From: blh@nospam.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 15:40:06 GMT Message-ID: <37b4e8a6.16706369@post.tele.dk> References: <3.0.1.32.19990629080606.006f84b0@pop.cais.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990629080606.006f84b0@pop.cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tue, 29 Jun 1999 08:06:06 -0400 skrev Eric Landau: >I don't think the TD's ruling should be affected by whether or not the >comment was made in jest. It was entirely out of line, and should be dealt >with on its face; There was once in 1969 where I nearly smiled. Luckily I managed to control myself. Bertel -- Denmark, Europe http://home6.inet.tele.dk/blh/ (in Danish only) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 03:47:39 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA05689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 03:47:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from clmout1-int.prodigy.com (clmout1-ext.prodigy.com [207.115.58.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA05680 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 03:47:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mime2.prodigy.com (mime2.prodigy.com [192.168.253.26]) by clmout1-int.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA23600 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:47:16 -0400 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime2.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id NAA19166 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:33:06 -0400 Message-Id: <199906291733.NAA19166@mime2.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae02dm02sc06 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:33:04, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Handicaps - slow play MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk -- [ From: Chyah * EMC.Ver #2.5.3 ] -- Regarding the issue of 2 visually impaired slowed players: The director needs to monitor the situation to find out a) are the visually impaired players also slow players or b) are people slowing down at that table due to being asked to do things they do not do at the other tables. If "b", then the problem will eventually get better. Apply my "have patience" rule; it will get better. Maybe give them some ideas on how they can speed up various parts of their game. 1) time spent calling the dummy as it is laid down 2) time spent claiming, is it faster if you don't claim? 3) time spent teaching people to call out cards? (teach at the table before or have the director give a mini-demo at the beginning of the game for those that do not know how) If "a", then the problem is not the handicap. I like the method of having a talk with them; explain that they can't play that slow. This situation should be treated as applied to slow, not to handicapped. However, I would still seek their advice on speeding up the "time items" at the table that you can control. What should be discussed on this list is what other directors do when they have a "marked" slow pair. I know hospitality breaks help these pairs get caught up, but I also know pairs without handicaps where even if a hand grenade went off in the middle of the table, they would still be thinking about the hand! If you suggest that you will impose a penalty if they don't get caught up by the next round, you better do it or don't make an idle threat. A number of directors just threaten, but do not follow through and then the threat becomes ineffective. -Chyah -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 05:25:02 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA05925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:25:02 +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 FAA05920 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:24:55 +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 MAA14019 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <04bb01bec264$270e0160$6c2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <199906291336.OAA01859@cyclone.cise.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: DWS off-line Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 12:18:16 -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 Robin Barker wrote: > David Stevenson just rang me. > > He is suffering internet-withdrawal symptoms. > He lost email/internet from Monday and it won't be back before Friday. > > He wanted you all to know, in case someone was awaiting his opinion > with baited breath. > I would advise BLMLers to avoid baiting DWS in any way when he returns, and therefore recommend that waiting with bated breath would be wiser. Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 10:41:40 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA06839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:41:40 +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 KAA06830 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:41:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from michael (user-2ivegk1.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.66.129]) by smtp2.mindspring.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA28888 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 20:41:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990629203733.01452f5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 20:37:33 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: Player makes own wrong ruling In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19990629080606.006f84b0@pop.cais.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19990628214144.0154fac8@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:06 AM 6/29/99 -0400, Eric wrote: >I don't think the TD's ruling should be affected by whether or not the >comment was made in jest. It was entirely out of line, and should be dealt >with on its face; it's not the TD's job to judge a player's degree of >jocularity. One can be as easy-going and light-hearted as one wants, >kidding around and cracking jokes to one's heart's content, without making >comments on the hand in progress, and players should understand this. I agree up to a point: the TD shouldn't have to "to judge a player's degree of jocularity." But he is not being asked to do so in this case. We are given unanimous consent that the comment was a joke, which is to say devoid of any meaningful information. No I, and hence no UI. Thus North is free to lead whatever he likes without L16 restrictions. If you are arguing that the TD should ignore the table consensus about the significance of the remarks and treat them as if they constituted a serious suggestion to partner, then IMO you are misusing the UI machinery as a punitive tool. If South deserves punishment, then the appropriate vehicle is a PP. I don't believe that West is entitled to any "redress" in this situation (in the form of potential score adjustment), because I don't believe (and don't really think that you believe) that his legitimate interests have been compromised in the slightest degree. Mike Dennis From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 15:43:03 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA07643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:43:03 +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 PAA07638 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:42:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from hdavis (209-122-246-77.s585.tnt1.lnh.md.dialup.rcn.com [209.122.246.77]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA08913 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:42:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001201bec2bb$53de40e0$4df67ad1@hdavis> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "bridge-laws" References: <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.19990629112624.007c5950@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:40:57 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Bley To: bridge-laws Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 5:26 AM Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM > (sniph) > >I'm not entirely sure why we're suddenly allowing revokers to profit from > >the consequential damage caused by their infraction. > > Sorry but that is really offside. > In no case there is anyone who profits by revoking. After the correcting of > the score he is (sometimes) in the same position as he would without the > revoke. NO PROFIT > > > Richard > Please read my statement. I didn't say that the offenders profited by the revoke. I said that they profited from consequential damage caused by the revoke. There's a difference. The following is all IMHO: Let's look at two scenarios: In case one, there is an established revoke that has absolutely no effect on the play. The hand is played out, and the appropriate number of penalty tricks are transferred to the non-offenders. 1 or 2 penalty tricks (0 if the offenders fail to win a trick after the revoke or other situations in L64B). End of ruling. In case two, the revoke affects the line of play, or a subsequent claim, so that the non-offenders lose tricks they would not have lost by normal play. Now, the infraction has actually changed the play of the hand, causing a distorted bridge result. This is actually a more serious situation than the first case. What do we do? We adjust the line of play back to what it would have been without the revoke: "equity". All well and good. However, the penalty trick(s) magically disappear. If the revoke has no effect whatsoever on the play of the hand, the non-offenders get their penalty trick(s) and a likely good board. If the revoke causes a misplay, the non-offenders get back to "equity", but lose their penalty trick(s). This is what I meant when I said that the offenders profited from consequential damage. The actual revoke "penalty" disappears. We penalize a revoke that causes no damage, and do not penalize a revoke that causes damage. Odd state of affairs. The problem stems from the unique character of the revoke laws. We have no problem adjusting to the most likely score that the non-offenders would have received in the absence of an infraction- in fact we consider it our duty to make this adjustment under L64C. However, the automatic penalties assigned by the revoke laws will often allow a non-offender to obtain a score that is higher than this standard. Because this type of score is possible, we need to look at equity a bit differently when a revoke occurs. True equity in this situation is not the score that would have occured in the absence of the infraction, but rather the score that the non-offenders would have received had the infraction not produced further damage during the play. Note that this definition eliminates the bonus the offenders receive (absence of penalty tricks) when the non-offenders are sucked into a misplay or bad claim by the infraction. Anybody still with me? If you've followed up to this point, the key question is: Are we legally able to restore equity in a meaningful sense (inclusive of the penalty trick(s)) in the revoke situations we have been discussing? Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 17:11:08 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA07779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:11:08 +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 RAA07774 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 17:10:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:10:27 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990630091047.0079ce70@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, 30 Jun 1999 09:10:47 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-Reply-To: <001201bec2bb$53de40e0$4df67ad1@hdavis> References: <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.19990629112624.007c5950@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:40 30.06.99 -0400, Hirsch Davis wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Richard Bley >To: bridge-laws >Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 5:26 AM >Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM > > >> (sniph) >> >I'm not entirely sure why we're suddenly allowing revokers to profit from >> >the consequential damage caused by their infraction. >> >> Sorry but that is really offside. >> In no case there is anyone who profits by revoking. After the correcting >of >> the score he is (sometimes) in the same position as he would without the >> revoke. NO PROFIT >> >> >> Richard >> > >Please read my statement. I didn't say that the offenders profited by the >revoke. I said that they profited from consequential damage caused by the >revoke. There's a difference. I see > >The following is all IMHO: > >Let's look at two scenarios: > >In case one, there is an established revoke that has absolutely no effect on >the play. The hand is played out, and the appropriate number of penalty >tricks are transferred to the non-offenders. 1 or 2 penalty tricks (0 if >the offenders fail to win a trick after the revoke or other situations in >L64B). End of ruling. > >In case two, the revoke affects the line of play, or a subsequent claim, so >that the non-offenders lose tricks they would not have lost by normal play. >Now, the infraction has actually changed the play of the hand, causing a >distorted bridge result. This is actually a more serious situation than the >first case. What do we do? We adjust the line of play back to what it >would have been without the revoke: "equity". All well and good. However, >the penalty trick(s) magically disappear. > >If the revoke has no effect whatsoever on the play of the hand, the >non-offenders get their penalty trick(s) and a likely good board. If the >revoke causes a misplay, the non-offenders get back to "equity", but lose >their penalty trick(s). This is what I meant when I said that the offenders >profited from consequential damage. The actual revoke "penalty" disappears. >We penalize a revoke that causes no damage, and do not penalize a revoke >that causes damage. Odd state of affairs. > >The problem stems from the unique character of the revoke laws. Exactly. The revoke rules 64A and 64B are AFAICS the only laws in the rules which dont try to get equity between the two parties. One reason I can see for this is that it would be far too complicated if every TD in the world had to adjust score by looking at the hand and asking himself "what would happened without the infraction?" (doubtful cases go against the offenders of course; the same question is in nearly any other place of the laws but not here). Just imagine the work you would have with the "normal" revoke cases. Another reason is that a player shall not profit from the revoke. A revoke is only discovered in roundabout 75% (just a guess; could be 0% as well) of all cases where this infraction occur. The TD has no chance to see if a player intended to revoke. So the rules here are harsh to alert the players on the fact that a revoke in not useful anyway (a motivation to be concentrated at least). Both reasons dont apply in the here discussed points.Just the distinct possibility for a rude penalty (1/2 tricks) is enough to motivate the players to be concentrated. And the situation will get more complicated if you try to muddle in the 1trick penalty into the equity things. So. If you have a case where 64A and 64B are not applicable in a direct way, the Laws Committee decided to use 64C in ANY case which is not covered by 64A and 64B. We have no >problem adjusting to the most likely score that the non-offenders would have >received in the absence of an infraction- in fact we consider it our duty to >make this adjustment under L64C. However, the automatic penalties assigned >by the revoke laws will often allow a non-offender to obtain a score that is >higher than this standard. Because this type of score is possible, we need >to look at equity a bit differently when a revoke occurs. True equity in >this situation is not the score that would have occured in the absence of >the infraction, but rather the score that the non-offenders would have >received had the infraction not produced further damage during the play. >Note that this definition eliminates the bonus the offenders receive >(absence of penalty tricks) when the non-offenders are sucked into a misplay >or bad claim by the infraction. > I still think there is no reason to redefine equity in this cases. Just stay by the laws. >Anybody still with me? If you've followed up to this point, the key >question is: Are we legally able to restore equity in a meaningful sense >(inclusive of the penalty trick(s)) in the revoke situations we have been >discussing? > IF your definition of equity would be correct, there would be no real problem. Take 12A1. It handles just this cases. BUT: I personally would not think about using it of course. ;-) Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 19:54:28 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA08041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:54:28 +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 TAA08036 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 19:54:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA03405 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:53:28 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 30 Jun 99 10:53 BST From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: AI after UI 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 After being highly impressed by the feedback last time I posted a problem the Club Owner has asked for input on another tricky ruling. ************ The Ruling A hand at the rubber bridge table last evening that we ruled on and would appreciate comments. Chicago for stakes. (UK Club, using the 30% rule for LA). System is pretty standard Acol (Stayman/Blackwood not a lot else). EW Vuln. N E S W 1S X P 2H 4S X* P** 5D P P P * Agreed Hesitation ** Agreed Hesitation AQxxxx VOID Q Axxxx T9 KJ T9xxx AKQx Axxxx KTxx x Qxx xxx Jxxx J9x KJx TABLE RESULT 5D-2 NS+200 ADJUSTED TO 4SX+1 NS+690 The 'Facts' West is an experienced player known to have good table presence and a full understanding of his ethical responsibilities. He explained his pull 'It was clear to me that the only action south was considering was XX and I was bidding 5D to make.' South (also an experienced player) said: I was thinking of redoubling 4S ********* My opinion, to set the ball rolling. I don't know who the four players were but can find out more about them if necessary. Absent the hesitation by South this seems easy. The UI from the slow double suggests that a bid is likely to be better than a pass but pass is an LA. Once I *know* that South is considering a redouble I am no longer sure that pass remains an LA - even at this vulnerability. Thanks Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 20:39:59 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA08098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:39:59 +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 UAA08093 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 20:39:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from fb03w204.uni-muenster.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP); Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:39:28 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990630123950.007a4b90@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, 30 Jun 1999 12:39:50 +0200 To: bridge-laws From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: REVOKE AND CLAIM In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990630091047.0079ce70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.d e> References: <001201bec2bb$53de40e0$4df67ad1@hdavis> <199906281643.JAA08497@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.19990629112624.007c5950@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Just imagine the work you would have with the "normal" revoke cases. >Another reason is that a player shall not profit from the revoke. A revoke >is only discovered in roundabout 75% (just a guess; could be 0% as well) of I wanted to write 50%.... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 21:05:15 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:05:15 +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 VAA08154 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-107-192.uunet.be [194.7.107.192]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10072 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:04:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3779F0D7.5695D570@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:26:31 +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: Book on movements References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > Let's look at this more closely. We'll use the 8 Table Mitchell, one > round switched. > [Set arm-waving on]. > We can see that arrow switching one round causes a whole lot of > matchpoints to change lines, compared with no switches. If I arrow- > switch one round then so does all the other pairs in my line. - and so > compared with each other we have arrow switched one quarter of the > boards.. So 3/4 of the competition comes from our line and 1/4 from the > other line. Which means that nett, 3/4-1/4=1/2 of the competition is > from our line, and the rest (the other half) comes from the other line. > Which means we have balanced the competition between the two lines. It > now doesn't matter if the strong or weak pair sits in our line or the > other line, on average we get the same competition from them regardless. > [Set arm-waving off] > I'm starting to write this before I've worked it out, but intuitively I feel that John is wrong. Let's continue the 8-round, 1 arrow-switch example. I am in line A (7 rounds NS, 1 round EW). In seven sets, I am NS, and I will be compared to 7 other NS pairs - that is 49 comparisons. Every A pair will be compared to me on all these 7 rounds, except for one round when they are themselves switched, that's six each. Comparisons for every A pair : 6 (x7=42 } Comparisons for every B pair : 1 (x7=7 } total 49 Comparisons for opposite B pair : 0 } In the eight set, I will be EW, and I will be compared to 7 B-pairs. Comparisons to A-Pairs : 0 Comparisons to B-Pairs : 1 each. total : comparisons to A pairs : 6 each comparisons to B pairs : 2 each except 2 special B pairs : only 1 So the balance is NOT correct, far from it. I agree with the Swedes, you need a second, and probably a third swith to better this. I believe they have made detailed calculations to determine which swithces are best. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 21:05:13 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA08162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:05:13 +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 VAA08153 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 21:05:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (pool02b-194-7-107-192.uunet.be [194.7.107.192]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10061 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:04:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3779E8CC.7B32AA37@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 11:52:12 +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 after revoke References: <199906151951.OAA04907@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry to unearth a thread you have buried while I was in Malta, but : cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > > > This is wrong, completely wrong. I am giving him the benefit of his > > opponent revoking. > > Exactly. You are giving more tricks to someone who _Concedes_ > than to someone who plays the hand out. Are _you_ sure the law requires > you to do _that_? > And you are giving (potentially) less tricks to someone who claims - completely correctly, we might add - than to someone who plays the hand out. Are you sure the Law requires you to do that ? This is not a discussion about how the Law ought to be, because a majority on this list thinks it is like this, but Grant, really, what do you prefer, giving this trick to revoker, or to declarer ? When answering, please remind yourself that it influences the number of claims - good ones ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 22:22:41 1999 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:22:41 +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 WAA08373 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:22:31 +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 HAA05898 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 07:22:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0ANLQ006 Wed, 30 Jun 99 07:35:06 Message-ID: <9906300735.0ANLQ00@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 99 07:35:06 Subject: Player makes own wrong ru To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My experience has been that such comments, especially those made with humorous intent, frequently are based in more fact than fiction. That they often unlock more secrets about the hand than can and were communicated by the auction alone. I can not agree that a joke holds no UI. The hundreds of tricks that disappear every year because partner persists in leading 'my suit' despite vigorous activity by the opponents and my signaling suggesting not to do so are testament that jokes can unlock a hand. The point is that one is unlikely to know when such a comment will in fact be material to the outcome of a hand. After having to suffer through the effect of hundreds of 'information about the hand jokes' I have yet to have reason to smile about my result at the end of the hand because of the tricks that were illegally stolen or having to watch for possible damage. A lot of the damage occurs because one's attention is diverted from playing the hand to policing the hand and this is grossly unfair. To say that an obvious joke is always allowed and then say after the fact that there might have been damage but because it was a joke there is no redress is a slap at those who follow the rules. And further, to make those unwelcome who can't take a joke and would like the courtesy of opponents to follow the rules looks to be in defiance of L72A1. To 'ostracize' a player that 'can't take a joke' seems to defy the purpose of the game. Complying with the rules is difficult as it is without adding a set of social rules that are neither written nor enforced on an equal basis. Imo, it is reasonable to accept when small liberties taken, but the line had better be drawn before they become big liberties. I'd like to make jokes during the hand about the oddities that come up but refrain from doing it because of the possibility of giving partner a problem or creating a deception upon the opponents, it is as simple as that. A club game I sometimes play in routinely has one the top players in the western hemisphere playing. A few months ago a novice pair was having a reasonable game until they played at his table. His frequent interruptions for jokes disconcerted them so much that they did not play well after that. But they had no inkling why. Funny, I have not seen them since . Off soapbox . Roger Pewick B>At 08:06 AM 6/29/99 -0400, Eric wrote: B>>I don't think the TD's ruling should be affected by whether or not the B>>comment was made in jest. It was entirely out of line, and should be B>dealt >with on its face; it's not the TD's job to judge a player's B>degree of >jocularity. One can be as easy-going and light-hearted as B>one wants, >kidding around and cracking jokes to one's heart's content, B>without making >comments on the hand in progress, and players should B>understand this. B>I agree up to a point: the TD shouldn't have to "to judge a player's B>degree of jocularity." But he is not being asked to do so in this case. B>We are given unanimous consent that the comment was a joke, which is to B>say devoid of any meaningful information. No I, and hence no UI. Thus B>North is free to lead whatever he likes without L16 restrictions. B>If you are arguing that the TD should ignore the table consensus about B>the significance of the remarks and treat them as if they constituted a B>serious suggestion to partner, then IMO you are misusing the UI B>machinery as a punitive tool. If South deserves punishment, then the B>appropriate vehicle is a PP. I don't believe that West is entitled to B>any "redress" in this situation (in the form of potential score B>adjustment), because I don't believe (and don't really think that you B>believe) that his legitimate interests have been compromised in the B>slightest degree. B>Mike Dennis B> Roger Pewick Houston, Texas r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org ___ *SoMail v1.2 *The Windows Mail Reader From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 22:52:43 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:52:43 +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 WAA08442 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:52:31 +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 IAA16892 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 08:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.5/NCF-Sun-Client) id IAA13353; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 08:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 08:52:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199906301252.IAA13353@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: DWS off-line Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Robin Barker wrote: > >> David Stevenson just rang me. >> >> He is suffering internet-withdrawal symptoms. > >> He lost email/internet from Monday and it won't be back before >Friday. >> >> He wanted you all to know, in case someone was awaiting his opinion >> with baited breath. >> >I would advise BLMLers to avoid baiting DWS in any way when he >returns, and therefore recommend that waiting with bated breath would >be wiser. > >Marv (Marvin L. French, mlfrench@writeme.com > If we have a particularly sharp and psyco(tic) ruling, would we wait with (Norman) Bated breath? Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 30 23:31:45 1999 Received: by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA08606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:31:45 +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 XAA08600 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 23:31:37 +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 AA211089488; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:31:28 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA282609487; Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:31:27 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 09:31:17 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: RE: Avg+ and Avg- 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 XAA08602 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: >I used a former game in ACBLScore and found 3 N-S pairs having >an Avg on one board (top of 12 and mean 156): > - pair A scored 202.8 = 65% > - pair B scored 156.0 = 50% > - pair C scored 109.2 = 35% > >I changeg the Avg to Avg+ for each pair (one by one). > - pair A scored 204.6 (the system added 65%-50%=15% of a top = 1.8) > - pair B scored 157.2 (10% of a top added = 1.2) > - pair C scored 110.2 (10% of a top added = 1.2) > >When I tried Avg- > - pair A scored 201.6 (minus 10% of a top = -1.2) > - pair B scored 154.8 (minus 1.2) *************************************** > - pair C scored 108.0 (minus 1.2) David Stevenson wrote ^ This should be minus 15% of a top = 1.8 ^ See http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm #4. ^ This is the interpretation placed by the WBFLC on the change in L12C1 in 1997. ^ This would have been correct before 1997. ____________________________________________________________ I asked ACBL and have been told ACBLScore gives minus 10% of a top for an Avg-, no matter the score of the pair. So it is minus 1.2 for a top of 12 to a pair having scored 35% ...... according to ACBL Law Commission interpretation... Which interpretation prevails.? Has WBFLC any power on national bodies? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City